CCPR/C/131/D/2772/2016 date of the author’s last complaint of torture and arbitrary arrest and detention, without a decision having been issued on its merits. Therefore, since this domestic remedy has been unreasonably prolonged and is in fact preventing the author from claiming a violation of his rights, the Committee considers that the remedy is not effective or efficient and that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 5.4 The Committee is of the view that the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations for the purposes of admissibility and proceeds to its consideration of the merits of his claims under articles 7, 9 and 10, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and articles 14 (3) (b) and (g), 17 and 23 of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes that the State party has not responded to the author’s allegations and recalls its jurisprudence according to which the burden of proof should not rest solely on the author of a communication, especially given that the author and the State party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State party is in possession of the necessary information.14 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations under article 7 of the Covenant to the effect that: (a) the treatment he endured during his detention at the premises of the National Intelligence Agency from 17 December 2014 to 14 January 2015 constituted torture; (b) he was detained at the premises of the National Intelligence Agency in deplorable conditions; and (c) he was held in solitary confinement from 17 December 2014 to 14 January 2015 without his being able to leave a cell barely larger than a cupboard, which was so small that he was unable to move and therefore had to remain in the same position at all times. In this regard, the Committee notes that prolonged solitary confinement of a detained or imprisoned person may amount to acts prohibited by article 7 of the Covenant.15 It also notes the allegations that, following the author’s refusal to confess during two rounds of questioning, he was severely beaten with a truncheon and that his father was forced to watch him being beaten during the second round. The Committee further notes that these acts were allegedly carried out by an officer of the National Intelligence Agency with a view to extracting confessions from the author. Lastly, the Committee notes that these allegations are supported by various signs of torture, including a fracture to the right forearm, described in a forensic report dated 3 July 2015, according to which the author has a permanent partial disability of 25 per cent. In view of the gravity of the allegations and in the absence of any information from the State party to refute them, the Committee concludes that there was a violation of article 7 of the Covenant in the present case. 6.4 In view of the above, the Committee will not consider separately the claims relating to the violation of article 10 of the Covenant. 6.5 With regard to article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the author’s allegations that: (a) he was arrested by officers of the National Intelligence Agency without a warrant or any legal basis and arbitrarily deprived of his liberty between 17 December 2014 and 14 January 2015 at the Agency’s premises, and then between 14 January 2015 and 6 June 2015 at Bukavu central prison, in violation of article 9 (1); (b) that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, in violation of article 9 (2); (c) that he was not brought before a judge or competent authority as soon as possible, in violation of article 9 (3); (d) that his right to take proceedings before a court was not respected, in violation of article 9 (4); and (e) that he has not been able to obtain redress, in violation of article 9 (5). In the absence of any information from the State party refuting these allegations, the Committee concludes that the 14 15 8 See, inter alia, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007), para. 7.4; and Berzig v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1781/2008), para. 8.3. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 6. GE.21-09615