In Prashant Kumar Pandey’s Case, Human Rights Committee on 30 October 2018 gave its views that state needs to investigate the allegation of torture and provide effective remedy to the victims. It also reiterated that statute of limitation cannot be the reason to not register the case and not to investigate in the allegation of torture where claim of the victim is corroborated with other evidences.
Recommendations
In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated with an effective remedy in the form of full reparation.
Accordingly, the State party is obligated to, inter alia:
- (a) conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the author’s allegations of torture and provide the author with detailed information about the results of its investigation;
- (b) prosecute, try and punish those responsible for the violations committed and make the results of such measures public;
- (c) expunge the author’s criminal record as connected to the present complaint;
- (d) ensure that any necessary and adequate psychological rehabilitation and medical treatment are made available to the author; and
- (e) provide the author with compensation and appropriate measures of satisfaction for the violations suffered, including a public apology.
The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. In particular, the State party should ensure that its legislation criminalizes torture and enforced disappearance and provides for appropriate sanctions and remedies commensurate with the gravity of the crimes; guarantees that any such cases shall give rise to a prompt, impartial and effective investigation; allows for the criminal prosecution of those responsible for such crimes; and amends the 35-day statutory limit for claiming compensation for torture, in accordance with international standards.
Click to read the full text by UN HRC’s Decision.
