CCPR/C/114/D/2183/2012 examination of facts but only the correct application of the law. Moreover, the plaintiff must be represented by a lawyer and, owing to a lack of sufficient financial means, the author sought the assistance of a State-appointed lawyer. The lawyer explained to him that there were no prospects of success before the Supreme Court in his case. This avenue was therefore not open to the author. There are no more judicial remedies available to him and, thus, he considers that he has exhausted the available domestic remedies. The complaint 3. The author considers that the compensation awarded to him by the national courts, namely, the statement by the Director of the Detention Centre, is insufficient to remedy the harm suffered. He claims that he is a victim of a violation of his rights under articles 7, 9 (5) and 10 (1) of the Covenant and asks to be granted financial compensation. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 26 October 2012 the State party submitted its observations on admissibility, asking the Committee to reject the communication as inadmissible. 4.2 The State party argued, first, that the author’s claim under article 9 (5) of the Covenant is inadmissible ratione materiae because his detention was not unlawful, but rather was ordered by the Warsaw District Court, by its decision of 26 October 2006 under article 228, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code, as the author had committed a crime punishable by a prison term. 4.3 According to the State party, the author did not provide any evidence that the conditions of his detention in the Warsaw-Mokotow Detention Centre attained such level of severity as to fall within the scope of article 7 of the Covenant. The State party notes that under the Committee’s case law, issues related to inadequate conditions of detention fall under the scope of article 10, rather than under article 7, of the Covenant, and that there should be serious aggravating factors in order for the violation resulting from the conditions of detention to be elevated to a breach of article 7.3 The State party admits that the author was placed in an overcrowded cell, with 2 square metres per person instead of the statutory 3 square metres, and that the cell’s sanitary corner was not properly isolated. It maintains, however, that the author was provided with all necessary supplies and food, and at no point was he ill-treated. The State party argues that, therefore, the author’s allegations of a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant are inadmissible ratione materiae. 4.4 As regards the author’s allegations about a violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant, the State party declares that it is inadmissible ratione personae. The State party refers to articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, according to which a person should have the status of a victim in order to submit a complaint to the Committee. The State party argues that the author lost his status as a victim when the domestic courts recognized the violation of his rights due to the inadequate conditions of detention, and redressed the violation by ordering a written apology from the Director of the Detention Centre. When examining the author’s pecuniary claim, the domestic courts had taken into due consideration such factors as the length of detention, the scope of the infringement, existence of cumulative factors, and the effects of the detention on the author’s health, both 3 4 In this context the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in communications No. 683/1996, Wanza v. Trinidad and Tobago, Views adopted on 26 March 2002; No. 458/1991, Mukong v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 21 July 1994; No. 8/1977, Weismann and Lanza Perdomo v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 3 April 1980; Nos. 241 and 242/1987, Birindwa and Tshisekedi v. Zaire, Views adopted on 2 November 1989; No. 731/1996, Robinson v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 29 March 2000; and No. 775/1997, Brown v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 23 March 1999.