CCPR/C/115/D/2214/2012 5.6 Having found no other impediment to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee declares the rest of the communication admissible in that it raises questions under articles 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16, 17 and 23, as well as under article 2 (para. 3), read in conjunction with articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant, and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it, as required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. It recalls that, in the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the author ’s allegations, to the extent that they are sufficiently substantiated. 6.2 The Committee takes note of the author ’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant that the treatment to which he was subjected during his detention from 11 to 18 December 2008 constituted torture. It notes the allegations that, during the interrogations that were carried out over a seven -day period, he was beaten severely, including being kicked and struck with a revolver in the groin and upper thighs; that he was subjected to having metal clamps attached to his testicles and tongue on a regular basis, to choking and to blows to the lower abdomen; that, during one of the interrogations, a guard lifted the author by the throat and then attached a clamp to his tongue; that he was forced to witness the rape of the prisoner who was sharing his cell and that he himself was then raped by the guards; and that, each morning, he was forced to submerge his head in a bucket of urine. The Committee notes as well that these acts reportedly continued to the point that the author had to be hospitalized and that they were committed by ANR authorities. Lastly, the Committee notes that the evidence of torture and the symptoms developed by the author as described in a forensic medical report prepared in the United Kingdom and dated 25 August 2009 corroborate these allegations. In the absence of any information from the State party in that regard, the Committee finds a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with respect to the author. 6.3 With regard to article 9, the Committee takes note of the author ’s allegations that, on 11 December 2008, he was arrested at his home by ANR agents without being served a warrant and without kno wing the reasons for his arrest, that he was held in detention for seven days without being brought before a judge or allowed access to a lawyer and that he was thus unable to bring proceedings before a court to decide on the lawfulness of his detention. In the absence of any information from the State party refuting these allegations, the Committee concludes that the rights guaranteed to the author under article 9 of the Covenant have been violated. 6.4 The Committee notes the author ’s allegation that articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, were violated given the lack of an effective remedy against these violations. In the case at hand, three years went by between the occurrence of the events and the submission of the communication to the Committee without any prompt, rapid inquiry having been conducted. The Committee notes that the author, by way of a letter dated 17 December 2008, filed a complaint against the ANR agents for arbitrary detention; that the complain t was filed again, with an additional claim of torture, on 23 January 2009; that letters following up on those complaints were sent on 11 March and 17 June 2009 and on 4 April 2011 to the Attorney General but received no reply; and that, on 24 June 2011, c ounsel for the author sent a follow-up letter to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any explanation for the lack of measures to remedy the alleged violations. The Committee concludes that the State 10/17 GE.15-22873