CCPR/C/126/D/2410/2014 medical examination concluded that the author had suffered light injuries to his face, arms and legs (para. 2.4). The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the author was detained at 5 a.m. on 13 September 2005 and, when taken to a temporary detention facility, he did not complain about the beatings by the police (para. 10.2). An inquiry procedure was initiated by the Bogotol Inter-district Prosecutor’s Office after the author’s lawyer submitted a complaint. However, during the course of the inquiry, the author refused to testify. The inquiry investigator interrogated three police officers who explained that, at the time of the detention, the author had shown active resistance to the police by taking swipes at them with an iron and moving towards the exit, which had prompted the officers to use force to detain him. Therefore, the inquiry concluded that the police had acted within their powers and refused to bring criminal charges against them (para. 10.3). The Committee further notes that there was another inquiry conducted in 2008, which also resulted in a refusal to charge the police officers, in the absence of corpus delicti (para. 10.4). This decision was upheld both by the Bogotol District Court and the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, which held that the police officers had acted within their powers while detaining the author. Finally, in 2013, the Bogotol District Court denied another complaint by the author against unlawful actions of the police related to the night of his arrest due to the lack of grounds for opening a criminal investigation against the police officers (para. 8.6). 13.3 The Committee notes that, while the State party reports that it conducted several inquiries into the author’s claims, it has not been shown that those investigations were launched promptly or that they were conducted effectively. The Committee emphasizes that the first allegations of ill-treatment were made by the author on the day of his detention on 13 September 2005, with injuries clearly visible on his face, while the first investigation into the allegations did not start until after the lawyer’s complaint on 20 September 2005. Furthermore, as it appears from the parties’ submissions, a key witness, the author’s friend at whose apartment he was detained, was not questioned by the authorities to clarify the circumstances of the author’s detention or if he was, indeed, detained at 2 a.m. as he had claimed and not at 5 a.m. as recorded in the official report. 13.4 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.14 The Committee reiterates that the Covenant does not provide a right for individuals to require that the State party criminally prosecute another person. 15 It considers, nonetheless, that the State party is under a duty to investigate promptly, impartially and thoroughly alleged violations of human rights, prosecute the suspects and punish those held responsible for such violations 16 and provide other forms of reparation, including compensation. 17 The Committee notes that nothing in the material on file allows it to conclude that the investigation into the allegations of the author’s cruel and inhuman treatment was carried out promptly or effectively by the authorities. Therefore, the Committee concludes that the facts as submitted reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 13.5 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 9 (1), no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention and no one shall be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. The Committee also recalls that, in accordance with article 9 (2), anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his or her arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him or her. The Committee notes the author’s claim that, on 13 September 2005 at 2 a.m., several men in civilian clothes broke into his friend’s apartment without identifying themselves as police officers and, upon entering, 14 15 16 17 12 The Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14; and general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligations imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 15. See also Askarov v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/116/D/2231/2012), para. 8.3; and Batanov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/120/D/2532/2015), para. 11.2. See, for example, X. v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/120/D/2256/2013), para. 7.4. Ibid. Ibid.