CAT/C/52/D/477/2011 7.4 As for the complainant’s allegations concerning his treatment following his meeting with the Special Rapporteur on torture, the State party notes that inquiries were undertaken in October and December 2012 by the Office of the Inspector General for the Prison System and that all those involved were interviewed. Its findings indicate that these allegations are essentially the result of the complainant’s vexation with various routine measures taken by prison officials. The complainant mistakenly believed that these lawful measures were directed at him alone, in view of several incidents that occurred during that period, and interpreted them as being attempts at intimidation or reprisals. 7.5 With regard to the question of the complainant’s conditions of detention in general, the State party notes that the complainant was placed in an individual cell — not an isolation cell — at his request. At the time of the Special Rapporteur’s visit, the complainant was not being held in isolation and was not subject to any disciplinary measures. The complainant had asked to be in a one-person cell when he was placed in pretrial detention. Although the facility is overcrowded, an individual cell was found for him. He remained in the same cell after his conviction. 7.6 As to his allegations concerning a lack of medical care, the State party notes that, since his arrival at Salé Prison, the complainant has had 11 medical appointments. Following the visit to the prison by personnel of the National Human Rights Council on 25 and 26 December 2012, the development of a more targeted medical treatment schedule that includes psychological counselling has done a great deal to defuse the tension surrounding the issue of the complainant’s conditions of detention. 7.7 Since he was incarcerated, the complainant has gone on hunger strike several times (most recently on 10 July 2013) to protest against the conditions in which he is being held. Following the intervention by the National Human Rights Council and a number of meetings between the complainant and prison administrators, including face-to-face meetings between the various parties, the complainant decided to end his strike. On 3 August 2013, he received a visit from the Director of the Department of Prison Administration who assured him that every effort would be made to ensure that the requested medical examinations would be performed and that instructions would be given to make sure that his fundamental rights as a prisoner were respected. On 6 August, he was examined by a urologist and given a general check-up in the presence of members of the National Human Rights Council. That examination showed that the complainant does not suffer from any problems whatsoever that would endanger his health. 7.8 Thanks to the successful mediation of the National Human Rights Council, the dialogue between the prisoner and prison administrators has been resumed. Prison officials have given assurances that they will regularly update the National Human Rights Council and the Inter-Ministerial Human Rights Delegation on the situation of the complainant. Further information submitted by the complainant 8. On 31 March 2014, the complainant reiterated his earlier claims and emphasized that he continued to be subjected to pressure by the authorities. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether the complaint is admissible under article 22 de la Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. It notes that issues relating to the GE.14-06421 13