CCPR/C/114/D/2183/2012 physical and mental. The courts reached a conclusion that all the circumstances in the author’s case do not constitute a sufficient ground for awarding pecuniary compensation under article 448 of the Civil Code. 4.5 On 28 January 2013, the State party reiterated its position on the inadmissibility of the communication and requested the Committee to consider its admissibility separately from the merits. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 15 April 2013, the author presented his comments to the State party’s observations. He disagrees with the State party’s argument on inadmissibility. 5.2 He reiterates his contentions regarding the conditions of detention and adds that at the time of detention he was 66 years old and suffered from high blood pressure. Thus, the conditions in which he had been detained had put him in danger of a stroke or a heart attack. The author points out that he was initially sentenced to serve his sentence in a penitentiary of a half-open type, where residential cells remain open during daytime and are closed only at night, but, instead, he was placed in an overcrowded cell, locked in all day, with the exception of a daily one-hour walk. 5.3 Concerning the State party’s observation on the inadmissibility ratione materiae of his claim under article 9 (5) of the Covenant, he submits that the fact that his detention was ordered by a court is of no relevance, since by putting him in inhuman conditions of detention, the State made his imprisonment unlawful. 5.4 The author disagrees with the State party’s argument regarding his claim under article 10 (1) of the Covenant to the effect that he had been provided with an effective remedy and should not be considered a victim. He argues that he did not receive any apology from the State. In his view, the written statement from the Director of the Detention Centre only confirmed the violation of his rights, without constituting an apology. In addition, since no monetary compensation was granted to him by the domestic courts, the author does not consider that he has been offered any effective remedy. 5.5 The author finally contests the State party’s statement that the conditions of detention fall only under article 10, and not under article 7, of the Covenant. He maintains that, if his complaint is considered only under article 10 (1), this would mean that he had not been subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment on account of the poor conditions of detention. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 21 August 2013 and 9 January 2014, the State party reiterated its previous observations, maintaining its argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible. 6.2 By a note verbale of 15 December 2014, the State party informed the Committee that on 24 May 2010 the author had lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights concerning his conditions of detention in the Warsaw-Mokotow Detention Centre between 28 February and 8 October 2007. The application was registered by the European Court under the number 43325/10 and communicated to the Government on 6 October 2014. Additional comments from the author 7.1 Concerning the State party’s correspondence of 21 August 2013 and 9 January 2014, the author submitted additional comments on 13 September 2013 and 6 February 2014, noting that the State party should provide its observations on the merits of his complaint. 5