CCPR/C/120/D/2435/2014 7.3 Regarding the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the author’s claims of torture, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights, such as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant. 8 While the State party contends that it conducted an investigation, the Committee notes that according to the material on file, the State party’s authorities did not provide information to show that they questioned any witnesses (including the author himself and his father), nor did they produce the results of the medical examination. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that no effective investigation was carried out into the allegations of torture, despite a witness statement from the author’s father, and a medical certificate indicating injuries on the author’s body. In the circumstances of the present case, and considering the State party’s failure to provide further medical records, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3). 7.4 With respect to the author’s claims under article 14 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee notes the uncontested facts that the court hearings were not held in the regular courtroom but at a military installation, and that relatives of the defendants, including those of the author, were not allowed to be present at those hearings. The State party submits in its observations that the very reason the hearings were held at the military unit was to provide security for the defendants and their relatives. The Committee recalls provisions of its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial that “all trials in criminal matters or related to a suit at law must in principle be conducted orally and publicly”.9 Article 14 (1) of the Covenant acknowledges that courts have the power to exclude all or part of the public “for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice”.10 The State party contends that the reason for the court hearings being held at the military unit was “only to provide security to the defendants and their relatives”. However, the State party failed to explain why it was necessary to exclude relatives of the author from being present during the hearings under one of the justifications contained in article 14 (1). In the absence of pertinent explanations from the State party, the Committee must conclude that the State party applied a disproportionate restriction on the author’s rights to a fair and public hearing, and therefore the author’s rights under article 14 (1) have been violated. 7.5 In the light of the previous findings, the Committee will not examine the author’s claims under articles 9 (1), (3) and (4) and 14 (3) (g) for the same facts. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 in conjunction with article 2 (3) and under article 14 (1), of the Covenant. 9. In accordance with 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) quash the author’s conviction, release the author, and if necessary, conduct a new trial, in accordance with the principles of fair hearings, presumption of innocence and other procedural safeguards; (b) conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into the author’s allegations of torture; and (c) provide the author with adequate compensation. 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 8 9 10 See the Committee’s general comments No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14, and No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 18. See para. 28. Ibid., para. 29. 7