CCPR/C/130/D/2820/2016 Committee considers that due weight must be given to the allegations of the author. The Committee therefore finds that the facts as presented amount to a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 7.7 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that he was not provided with an effective remedy for the abuse suffered at the hands of the police, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), given that he never obtained any compensation for the harm he suffered. The Committee recalls that the civil claim for compensation for moral damages brought by the author in the context of the criminal proceedings initiated against the police officers was rejected by the Military Court of Appeal when it acquitted the accused police officers. It also observes that the State party has not demonstrated that there were alternative legal avenues for the author to obtain effective redress once the criminal convictions were overturned and the author became deprived of the compensation for moral damages he had previously been awarded, which is not in line with its obligation to provide adequate redress to the author.23 Therefore, the Committee considers that the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), have been violated. 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 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3). 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. In the present case, the State party is under an obligation, inter alia, to provide adequate compensation and appropriate measures of satisfaction, including reimbursement of any legal costs and medical expenses, as well as for non-pecuniary losses, incurred by the author. 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 or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable 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 Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official language and other major languages of the State party. 23 10 Horvath v. Australia (CCPR/C/110/D/1885/2009), para. 8.7; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, paras. 15–16.