CCPR/C/115/D/2304/2013 the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, or that the court failed in its duty to maintain independence and impartiality.22 In the light of the information available on file, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the author has failed to demonstrate that the alleged “lack of equality of arms” reached the threshold for arbitrariness in the evaluation of the evidence, or amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee therefore concludes that the author’s claims under article 14 (2) and (3) (e) of the Covenant have not been sufficiently substantiated. Accordingly, the Committee declares that part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his claims under articles 9 (1) and (3)-(5), 10 (1) and 14 (1) and (3) (a), (b) and (d) of the Covenant and therefore proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the conditions of his pretrial detention and, subsequently, of imprisonment amounted to a violation of his rights under article 10 of the Covenant. The author submits to the Committee that his already bad health condition deteriorated after the prolonged detention and that the prison where he is serving his sentence does not have adequate facilities for the level of medical care that he needs. The Committee further notes the incident that occurred on 14 February 2014, when a prison guard allegedly assaulted the author, upon his arrival to the prison. 7.3 The State party contested these allegations stating that the author received medical care when it was requested, and that he did not need hospitalization. The State party, however, did not comment or provide any further information on the author’s deteriorating health status and on the lack of immediate medical assistance in response to hypertensive crises and loss of consciousness. The Committee notes that the State party is under an obligation to observe certain minimum standards of detention, which include the provision of medical care and treatment for sick prisoners, in accordance with rule 22 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. It is clear from the author’s account that he was not able to receive proper medical treatment from the authorities of the detention centre or, subsequently, while serving his sentence in prison. The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that he was denied access to his family and lawyers. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee finds that confining the author in such conditions constitutes a violation of his right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person under article 10 (1) of the Covenant.23 7.4 The Committee also notes that the trial of the author was not open to the public, that the author was denied the right to request a jury trial, which should have been available to him in accordance with national law, and that the author’s final conviction was not made public. The Committee notes that the State party provided no explanations as to the secret nature of the proceedings, except for the contention that counsel for the author needed a 22 23 See, inter alia, communications No. 1188/2003, Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 2 November 2004, para. 7.3; and No. 1138/2002, Arenz et al. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 24 March 2004, para. 8.6. See, for instance, communications No. 590/1994, Bennet v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 25 March 1999, paras. 10.7-10.8; No. 695/1993, Simpson v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 31 October 2001, para. 7.2; No. 704/1996, Shaw v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 2 April 1998, para. 7.1; and No. 734/1997, McLeod v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 31 March 1998, para. 6.4. 11