CCPR/C/130/D/2429/2014 consciousness, he was beaten on his feet with batons and forced to chew a chilli and a metal object was inserted into his anus, which made him lose consciousness again. Unable to bear the pain, the author confessed to six counts of cattle theft. The Committee observes that the author has submitted a detailed account of the treatment to which he claims he was subjected, with supporting medical evidence. According to the medical examination performed at the Aksiy district hospital on 1 June 2007, five weeks after his arrest, the author was still diagnosed with soft tissue bruises on his forearms, head and body, and injuries to his kidneys that could have been caused by a blunt object. On 14 June 2007, he was transferred to the Aksiy district hospital for treatment. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that, during the inquiry by the district prosecutor’s office into the allegations of torture on 27 April 2007, the author refused to undergo a forensic medical examination and denied having been tortured. In this respect, the author argues that he refused to undergo a medical examination because he feared being subjected to further beatings by the police officers in retaliation, especially since he was easily accessible to them while being detained at the Aksiy district police department. In fact, he claims to have been subjected to beatings by police officers immediately before he was questioned by the deputy district prosecutor on 27 April 2007 (see paras. 2.6 and 5.1). 7.3 The Committee recalls that a State party is responsible for the security of any person it holds in detention and, when an individual in detention shows signs of injury, it is incumbent on the State party to produce evidence showing that it is not responsible. 5 The Committee has held on several occasions that the burden of proof in such cases cannot rest with the author of a communication alone, especially considering that frequently only the State party has access to the relevant information.6 In the absence of any specific arguments by the State party to counter the claims made by the author, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. 7.4 With regard to 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. 7 The Committee also recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially so as to make the remedy effective. 8 7.5 The Committee notes that, in the present case, the initial complaint about the torture suffered by the author was submitted to the Aksiy district prosecutor on 26 April 2007. The Committee observes that, even though the inquiry into the allegations of torture by the district prosecutor’s office was promptly initiated, it was closed on 4 May 2007 after the author denied having been tortured and refused to undergo a medical examination of his injuries, for fear of reprisals. The Committee further notes that, on 31 May and 1, 6 and 7 June 2007, the author’s lawyer submitted several motions to the Aksiy district prosecutor detailing the author’s claims of torture and asking for an urgent medical examination and hospitalization of the author due to the injuries that he had sustained as a result of the torture. The Committee observes that, along with the complaint, the author’s lawyer submitted the results of the medical examination revealing the author’s injuries, an affidavit signed by the author’s cellmate who had witnessed his suffering and copies of the notes that the author had been able to send to his brother from his place of detention. However, on 15 June 2007, the Aksiy assistant district prosecutor again refused to open a criminal investigation into the author’s claims based on the forced testimony given by the author on 27 April 2007 because he feared being subjected to reprisals and the explanations given by three of the four police officers 5 6 7 8 6 For example, Siragev v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/85/D/907/2000), para. 6.2; Zheikov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/86/D/889/1999), para. 7.2; and Eshonov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/99/D/1225/2003), para. 9.8. For example, Human Rights Committee, Bleier Lewenhoff and Valino de Bleier v. Uruguay, communication No. 30/1978, para. 13.3; and Mukong v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991), para. 9.2. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 14, and general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 18. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 14; and, for example, Khalmamatov v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/128/D/2384/2014), para. 6.4.