CCPR/C/105/D/1303/2004 in this regard that according to the author, these inhuman conditions of detention led to Mr. Chiti’s premature death. In the light of his cancer and his HIV-positive condition, the denial of the necessary drugs and the torture and inhuman conditions of detention to which he was subjected, this claim seems plausible. The Committee notes that the State party limits itself to denying the causal link established by the author between the conditions of detention of her husband and his death, without providing further explanation. In the absence of rebuttal from the State party, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to protect the life of Mr. Chiti in violation of article 6 of the Covenant. 12.3 On the basis of the information available to it, the Committee further concludes that the torture inflicted on Jack Chiti, his poor conditions of detention with no adequate access to health care, the anguish he remained in for seven years before his sentence to death was quashed as well as the absence of a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation of the facts constitute a violation of article 7, alone and read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 12.4 The Committee also takes note of the anguish and distress caused by the arrest, allegations of torture, poor conditions of the author’s husband and the eviction from their home. It considers that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to author and her family.12 12.5 Having come to this conclusion, the Committee will not address the author’s separate allegations under article 10 of the Covenant.13 12.6 With regard to the author’s allegation that her husband’s rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (g), have been violated, the Committee notes the author’s contention that on 10 November 1997, her husband was taken back to the police station headquarters where he had been allegedly tortured for nine days, and was forced to make a written statement implicating certain politicians in the alleged coup and sign the document. The Committee notes that the State party has not refuted this claim. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 32 on article 14 in which it insists that the right not to testify against oneself must be understood in terms of the absence of any direct or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the accused, with a view to obtaining a confession of guilt. A fortiori, it is unacceptable to treat an accused person in a manner contrary to article 7 of the Covenant in order to extract a confession. Domestic law must ensure that statements or confessions obtained in violation of article 7 of the Covenant are excluded from the evidence, except if such material is used as evidence that torture or other treatment prohibited by this provision occurred, and that in such cases the burden is on the State to prove that statements made by the accused have been given of their own free will. In light of the information before it, the Committee concludes to a violation of Mr. Chiti’s rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant. 12.7 The Committee notes the author’s allegation that, on 31 October 1997, soldiers, police officers and State security agents forced their way into the government flat the Chiti family was living in and took away all the family belongings. The Committee notes the author’s claim that all the belongings, including important official documents are either 12 13 Communication No. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 9.6; communication No. 107/1981, Quinteros v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 July 1983, para. 14; communication No. 950/2000, Sarma v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 16 July 2003, para. 9.5; communication No. 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 9.8; communication No. 1327/2004, Grioua v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007, para. 7.7. Communication No. 1755/2008, El Hagog Jumaa v. Libya, para. 8.7; communication No. 1880/2009, Nenova et al. v. Libya, Views adopted on 20 March 2012, para. 7.7; communication No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.8. 9