CCPR/C/118/D/2128/2012 least 600 prisoners at that time, which was well beyond its capacity of 100. The author was held in Block No. 3, which comprised a dormitory and a courtyard. The dormitory measured 7 metres wide by 10 metres long by 6 metres high. Despite having originally been designed to accommodate 20 prisoners, it in fact held 176 men between the ages of 18 and 80. The dormitory had 60 metal bunk beds with foam mattresses but no sheets or pillows. As there were not enough beds, the prisoners were forced to sleep two to a bed, while the rest just had to sleep huddled together on the floor. The dormitory had only two toilets and one washbasin in a corner, which occasioned long queues and jostling for access. The toilets did not flush, and the resulting stench and rat infestation prevented the prisoners from sleeping. The dormitory had eight small windows high up, with metal bars and grilles that blocked out the light. Only one of the two ventilator vents on the wall was working, and the ceiling fan never worked. As most of the prisoners smoked, it was almost impossible to breathe because of the smoke and the heat, which had a serious effect on the health of the majority of the prisoners. The author had eye problems and, since there was not enough light to read or write by anyway, none of the prisoners could pursue any courses or study. Moreover, the prisoners were forbidden to send sealed letters out of the prison, with the exception of correspondence addressed to the chief prosecutor of Mascara. 2.21 Prisoners could not make telephone calls to their families. Leave passes were granted in a discriminatory manner, with only those prisoners who had been made responsible for keeping order being allowed to go out of the prison. For seven hours a day, inmates remained in the dormitory courtyard, which was 70 square metres in size. They could not do any exercise or even walk around because there was so little space in the yard, so they had to stand for seven hours each day, winter and summer alike, with no shelter or shade. Breakfast and lunch were of good quality, but the evening meal was inedible, and all the prisoners refused to eat it. Prisoners were entitled to only one shower a week. Their physical safety was not ensured, and fights broke out frequently, but the guards did nothing. Their personal effects could easily be stolen. The guards appeared in the yard only very briefly, once at 8 o’clock in the morning and again at 4.30 in the afternoon. 2.22 On 30 March 2010, the author was transferred to the prison at Ghriss, 20 km from Mascara, where he was held until his release. The author describes the conditions at this prison as appalling as well: he was held in Cell No. 1, which was 30 square metres in size and held 43 prisoners; it had 20 metal bunks with no bedding, and 23 of the prisoners had to sleep on the floor. The cell was well-ventilated but was not heated in winter. The prisoners could attend training courses or classes but could not send sealed mail. The quality of the food, which was prepared by inmates, was extremely poor, and the quantity of food was insufficient. To stave off their hunger, most of the inmates ingested powdered fruit juice with bread. Because of the acidity of this concoction and the fact that they were underfed, many of them had stomach problems, for which they received no treatment. The author’s health deteriorated quickly, to the point where headaches and dizziness prevented him from walking altogether. On 2 May 2010, he asked to be taken to hospital; he underwent a medical check-up, which showed that he had disturbingly high blood pressure. He was given treatment and a better diet, as a result of which his health improved. 2.23 In April 2010, reprisals were taken by the Algerian authorities against the president of the Algerian branch of Transparency International, Djilali Hadjadj, for having supported the author and spoken out against his imprisonment. He was sentenced in absentia to imprisonment and later incarcerated. 2.24 On 5 July 2010, the author was released when a presidential pardon was decreed as part of the country’s independence celebrations. Fearing reprisals, the author decided not to file a legal complaint about the conditions of detention to which he was subjected. He points out that, under article 144 of the Criminal Code, anyone criticizing the public GE.16-23057 5