CCPR/C/117/D/2219/2012 there are no effective remedies available to him in the State party with regard to his claims under articles 7, 10 and 14 (7) of the Covenant, and that he has exhausted the available domestic remedies in regard to his claim under article 18 (1) of the Covenant, with the decisions of Dashoguz Regional Court and of the Supreme Court of Turkmenistan, which upheld his convictions and sentences. 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 that the State party has not contested the author’s argumentation concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that in the present case it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 7.4 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 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, after his conviction, he was singled out as a Jehovah’s Witness for harsh treatment during the first 10 days of his detention in quarantine, and he was put into a punishment cell for periods of two to three days. The Committee also notes that on another occasion, the author was isolated in a “control unit”, a type of punishment cell, for one month, and that once during that period, four masked officers from the Ashgabad special police forces entered the cell and severely beat him. In addition, following his transfer on 23 May 2012 to the LBK-11 prison, the author was beaten and ill-treated during his placement in isolation for 10 days. The author claims that he was repeatedly placed in the punishment cell. The Committee notes the author’s allegations regarding the lack of adequate mechanisms for investigation of the claims of torture in Turkmenistan, and recalls that complaints of ill-treatment must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities. 15 The State party has not refuted those allegations, nor provided any information in that respect. 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. 8.3 The Committee notes the author’s claims concerning the deplorable prison conditions at the LBK-12 prison. He claimed, for example, that he was confined in a bare concrete cell for repeated periods of several days, and that in the cells under the general prison regime, he was exposed to extreme heat in summer and extreme cold in winter. He also claimed that the prison was overcrowded and that prisoners infected with tuberculosis and skin diseases were kept together with healthy inmates, putting him at a high risk of contracting tuberculosis. The Committee notes that the State party did not contest those allegations. The Committee recalls that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; they must be treated in accordance with, inter alia, the Standard Minimum Rules for 15 8 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.