CCPR/C/117/D/2220/2012 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.13 The Committee notes the author’s submission that there are no effective remedies available to him in the State party with regard to his claims under articles 7 and 14 (7) of the Covenant, and that he has exhausted the available domestic remedies in regard to the alleged violation of article 18 (1) of the Covenant as he appealed the decisions of Dashoguz City Court of 29 December 2010 and 8 January 2013. The Committee also notes the State party’s assertion of 17 March 2014 that the author’s case had been carefully considered by the relevant law enforcement bodies of Turkmenistan and no reason had been found to appeal the court decision, and further notes that the State party has not contested the author’s argumentation concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 8.4 The Committee considers that the author’s claims, raising issues under articles 7, 10, 14 (7) and 18 (1) of the Covenant, are sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, declares them admissible and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The 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 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he was ill-treated while detained in the temporary holding facility in Dashoguz, on 30 December 2010 when he was beaten by the director for refusing military service and on 21 January 2011 when he was kicked and beaten by the Chief of the Investigative Department who accused him of being a “traitor”. The Committee takes note of the statement by the author’s mother indicating that on 11 February 2013 he informed her that he was being tortured, threatened and questioned by officers of the sixth police department in the DZ-D/7 temporary detention centre in Dashoguz. The Committee also notes the author’s allegation regarding the lack of adequate mechanisms for investigation of torture and ill-treatment in the State party, and recalls that complaints of ill-treatment must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities.14 The Committee takes note of the State party’s statement that police officers were not responsible for the interrogation of the author. However, the Committee also notes that the State party has not refuted the allegations of torture and ill-treatment, nor has it provided any information in this respect. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts as presented reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 9.3 The Committee further notes the author’s claims concerning the deplorable conditions at the LBK-12 prison, including the placement of the author on his arrival on 10 March 2011 in solitary confinement for 10 days, the harsh climatic conditions that he was exposed to during an extremely hot summer and an extremely cold winter, and the fact that 13 14 6 See, for example, communication No. 2097/2011, Timmer v. Netherlands, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 6.3. See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.