CCPR/C/130/D/3000/2017 establish the exact origin of his medically documented injuries. In the light of the above considerations, the Committee concludes that the State party failed to launch a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into the circumstances of torture of the author and therefore failed to provide him with an effective remedy, in violation of article 7, read together with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant. 7.7 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his detention from 27 to 29 December 2010 was arbitrary, undocumented and unlawful and violated article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. The Committee notes that the State party denies that the author was detained on those dates and argues that, according to the logbook of the office of the State Committee on National Security, he was detained only from 9.20 a.m. to 9.50 a.m. on 29 December 2010. However, the State party does not provide any documents to support its position, and at least one investigation led by the State party’s authorities indeed confirms that, on the contrary, the author was detained, as he claims, on 27 December 2010 (see para. 2.9). The Committee therefore decides that due weight must be given to the author’s detailed allegations to the effect that there was no official record of his arrest and detention from 27 to 29 December 2010 and that he was never informed of the reasons for his arrest. The Committee notes that, under paragraph 23 of its general comment No. 35 (2014), States parties are required to comply with domestic rules providing important safeguards for detained persons, such as making a record of an arrest.10 In view of the information on file, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of the author’s rights under article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant on account of his unrecorded arrest and detention and the failure of the State party to inform him about the reasons for his arrest. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. 9. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to take appropriate steps to: (a) conduct a prompt, effective, thorough, independent, impartial and transparent investigation into the torture of the author and to prosecute and, if the suspicions are confirmed, punish those responsible; (b) keep the author informed regularly about the progress of the investigation; and (c) provide the author with adequate compensation for his suffering and the violations of his rights, with adequate rehabilitation measures, if needed. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 10. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the present Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party. 10 8 See the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014).