CCPR/C/113/D/2054/2011 taking adequate measures of protection. The Committee concludes that in the circumstances of the present case the State party is responsible for the failure to protect the victim’s life, in breach of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 9.5 As to the author’s claim under article 7, the Committee recalls that it is the duty of the State party to afford everyone protection as may be necessary against the acts prohibited by article 7, whether inflicted by people acting in their official capacity, outside their official capacity or in a private capacity. 22 The State party is responsible for the security of any person in its custody, and when an individual is injured while in detention it is incumbent on the State party to produce evidence refuting the allegations that the State party’s agents are responsible23 and showing that they applied due diligence in protecting the detainee. The Committee notes that the State party has not addressed in a substantiated way the specific allegations of ill-treatment advanced by the author. In these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the author’s claims are substantiated and have been corroborated by the official autopsy report and its independent evaluation and finds, therefore, a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to the author’s brother. 9.6 The Committee notes the author’s submission that the State party failed to conduct a prompt, impartial, thorough and effective investigation of the victim’s death and allegations of torture. The Committee notes the author’s claim that the investigation was not independent because both the internal investigation and the bulk of the criminal investigation were conducted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is the institution that was holding his brother in custody when he was tortured and killed with the knowledge and acquiescence of police officers. The Committee recalls its constant jurisprudence that complaints against ill-treatment prohibited by article 7 and allegations of violations of article 6 (1) must be investigated promptly, thoroughly and effectively through an independent and impartial body,24 and that in cases in which the established investigative procedures are inadequate and in cases where there are complaints from the family of the victim about those inadequacies or other substantial reasons, States parties should pursue investigations through an independent commission of inquiry or similar procedure. 25 The families of the deceased and their legal representatives should have access to all information relevant to the investigation, and should be entitled to present other evidence.26 The Committee observes that according to the author the investigation had failed to seize important evidence and question key witnesses, and that it is undisputed that no cutting instrument was recovered from the cell, despite the fact that the victim died from cuts on his throat. The Committee also notes that according to the author’s uncontested submission the victims’ family was not informed of the progress of the investigation nor was a final report of the investigation made available to the family (see para. 3.4). The Committee concludes that the failure of the State party’s authorities to investigate promptly and properly the circumstances of Rakhmonberdi Ernazarov’s death effectively denied a remedy to the author, and the rest of the family, in violation of his rights under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6 (1) and 7.27 22 23 24 25 26 27 See general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 2. See communication No. 907/2000, Siragev v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 1 November 2005, para. 6.2; communication No. 889/1999, Zheikov v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 17 March 2006, para. 7.2; and Zhumbaeva v. Kyrgyzstan, para. 8.9. See general comment No. 20, para. 14 and general comment No. 31, para. 15. See Eshonov v. Uzbekistan, para. 9.6. Ibid. See communication No. 1275/2004, Umetaliev and Tashtanbekova v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 30 October 2008, para. 9.6 and Zhumbaeva v. Kyrgyzstan, para. 8.10. 11