CCPR/C/118/D/2128/2012 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before examining any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, determine whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee wishes to reiterate its concern at the fact that, despite having been sent three reminders, the State party has not provided it with any relevant observations or information concerning the admissibility or the merits of the communication. The Committee therefore finds that there is nothing that precludes it from considering the communication in accordance with article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee finds the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 2 (3), 7, 10, 14 (1) and (3) (b), (c) and (d), 17 and 19 and therefore proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration on the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes that the State party has not responded to the author’s claims concerning the merits of the case and recalls that, as has been established in its jurisprudence, the burden of proof should not rest solely on the author of a communication, especially given the fact that the author and the State party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often the State party alone has the necessary information.9 Accordingly, and as implied in article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to provide the Committee with the information available to it.10 In the absence of any explanations from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, provided they have been sufficiently substantiated. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the claim made by the author under article 7 of the Covenant that the deplorable conditions in which he was held in Mascara and Ghriss prisons, including prison overcrowding and a lack of hygiene, ventilation, lighting, food and physical exercise, were not in compliance with the requirements of the Covenant (paras. 2.20-2.22 above). The Committee notes that the State party has not contested those claims. In the absence of a rebuttal by the State party, the Committee finds a violation of article 7 of the Covenant in respect of the author. Having found a violation of article 7, the Committee decides not to give separate consideration to the claim made on the basis of article 10 of the Covenant. 9 10 GE.16-23057 See, inter alia, communications Nos. 1779/2008, Mezine v. Algeria, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 8.3; 1640/2007, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 7.4; 1781/2008, Djebrouni v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 8.3; and 1791/2008, Boudjemai v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2013, para. 8.3. See communications Nos. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.3. 9