CCPR/C/113/D/2087/2011 (para. 2) of the Optional Protocol obliges States parties to examine in good faith all allegations brought against them, and to make available to the Committee all information at their disposal. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations, to the extent that they are substantiated. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 As required under article 5 (para. 2 (a)) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 5.3 In the absence of any submission by the State party on the admissibility of the communication, and noting the authors’ statement that domestic remedies have proven to be unduly prolonged, the Committee declares the communication admissible, in as far as it appears to raise issues under article 6 (para. 1), article 7, article 9 (paras. 1, 2 and 4) and article 10 (para. 1), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (para. 3), of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it, as required under article 5 (para. 1) of the Optional Protocol. It recalls that in the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations, to the extent that they are substantiated. 6.2 Regarding the authors’ claim under article 6 in relation to the arbitrary deprivation of Sunil Hemachandra’s life, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, in which it determined that by arresting and detaining individuals, the State party takes the responsibility to care for their life,6 and that a death in any type of custody should be regarded prima facie as a summary or arbitrary execution. Consequently, there should be a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation to confirm or rebut this presumption, especially when complaints by relatives or other reliable reports suggest unnatural death.7 Sunil Hemachandra was arrested on 22 July 2003 at his place of residence by officers of Moragahahena Police Station. Four days later, that is, on 26 July 2003, he died in the national hospital in Colombo as a direct result of an “acute subdural hemorrhage following a head injury caused by blunt trauma”. Although the victim was bleeding uninterruptedly, and was visibly in a critical medical condition the day after he was arrested and placed in detention (i.e. on 23 July 2003), the police failed to seek medical assistance for at least three hours (paras. 2.7 and 3.3). 6.3 The Committee recalls that criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.8 In the instant case, the Committee observes that all investigative 6 7 8 See communication No. 1756/2008, Zhumbaeva v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 19 July 2011, para. 8.6. See communication No. 1225/2003, Eshonov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 22 July 2010, para. 9.2. See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant. See also communications No. 1619/2007, Pestaño v. Philippines, Views 9