CCPR/C/125/D/2333/2014 communication and in the expression of its Views. 3 It is up to the Committee to determine whether a communication should be registered. By failing to accept the competence of the Committee to determine whether a communication should be registered and by dissociating itself with the Committee’s determination on the admissibility or the merits of the communication, the State party has violated its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.4 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of the identification by the State party of a particular remedy that remained available to the author, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the present communication. 7.4 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under articles 2 (3) and 7 of the Covenant, read separately and in conjunction, for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee first notes the author’s claim that, on 22 June 2011, he was detained and was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and otherwise mistreated. The author was then examined by two different doctors, who diagnosed a broken nose and several bruises. Though the State party did not provide its observations on these allegations, it is clear from the author’s submissions that the State party, instead of launching a prompt and impartial investigation by its competent authorities, 5 refused to initiate a formal criminal investigation on five occasions. The Committee also notes that the author provided the authorities with evidence of mistreatment, testimonies of witnesses and requests to question additional witnesses. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, and in particular in the light of the State party’s inability or unwillingness to explain the visible signs of mistreatment that were witnessed by a number of persons, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations. 8.3 Regarding the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the author’s claims of mistreatment, 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. 6 The Committee notes that according to the material on file, no formal investigation was carried out into the allegations of mistreatment, despite a number of incriminatory witness accounts and two medical certificates. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee concludes that the facts 3 4 5 6 4 Levinov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/105/D/1867/2009, 1936, 1975, 1977–1981, 2010/2010), para. 8.2; and Poplavny v. Belarus (CCPR/C/115/D/2019/2010), para. 6.2. Korneenko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/105/D/1226/2003), para. 8.2. General comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14. Ibid. and general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 18.