CCPR/C/113/D/2054/2011 circumstances of the present case, domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged and that article 5 (2 (b)) does not preclude it from considering the communication. 20 8.4 The Committee notes that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on other grounds and finds that the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations under articles 6 (1) and 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee, therefore, proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Human Rights 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. 9.2 As to the author’s claim in relation to the arbitrary deprivation of his brother’s life, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the State party by arresting and detaining individuals takes the responsibility to care for their life.21 9.3 The Committee notes that in the instant case it is undisputed that the author’s brother died on 20 November 2005 while he was in the custody of the State party’s police, and that there is no final official explanation of how his death occurred. The Committee notes the author’s submissions that: his brother had been subjected to psychological and physical abuse by other men in his cell because he was charged with a sexual offence against another man; that the author had received information from a guard in the police station that his brother had been forced to eat and sleep near the toilet and to inflict injuries upon himself with metal cutlery; that his brother’s dish and spoon had been damaged by his cellmates to make it difficult for him to eat; and that the authorities were aware of the abuse and also of the risk it posed to his brother’s life, but did nothing to prevent, halt or punish it. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that, when questioned, the cellmates of the author’s brother denied torturing him and the guards at the police station denied having knowledge of any torture. 9.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims that the autopsy report revealed various injuries on the victim’s body, such as a cut on the left wrist, a cut on the left knee, bruises on the stomach, left arm and right leg, and missing teeth, that his brother had been illtreated by his cellmates on a daily basis for the duration of his detention, because of the nature of the charges brought against him, and that this happened with the acquiescence of the police station personnel. The Committee also notes that the State party has not explained how the injuries of the author’s brother may have occurred in police custody, and that the State party had simply denied the allegations of ill-treatment and allegations that the guards at the detention centre were aware of the alleged daily abuse of Mr. Ernazarov by his cellmates during his detention. The Committee considers that it is the duty of the State party to afford protection to everyone in detention as may be necessary against threats to life. In the absence of any information, other than denial, by the State party with respect to the author’s allegation that the authorities were aware of his brother’s daily ill-treatment by his cellmates, and absent any information on measures taken to protect his brother’s right to life, the Committee concludes that the Kyrgyz authorities are responsible for not 20 21 10 See communications No. 1560/2007, Marcellana and Gumanoy v. Philippines, Views adopted on 30 October 2008, para. 6.2; No. 1250/2004, Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, paras. 6.1 and 6.2; and No. 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 8.3. See Lantsova v. Russian Federation, para. 9.2, and communication No. 1756/2008, Zhumbaeva v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 19 July 2011, para. 8.6.