CCPR/C/117/D/2219/2012 He submitted that after the second trial, he spent 21 days in the DZD-7 detention facility in the city of Dashoguz, where he arrived on 2 May 2012. That day, the chief of the operative department ordered three cellmates to beat him in the head, the kidneys and the chest. On 23 May 2012, he was transferred to the LBK-11 colony in the city of Seydi. Upon his arrival, he was placed in isolation for 10 days. There he was beaten and threatened by one of the sergeants. On 13 September 2012, he was working in the industrial zone when an operative tossed him a broom, and told him to sweep a certain area, which is considered the most degrading work, which he did. As soon as he had finished, he was called to the operative department and was accused of having talked to a soldier in the lookout tower. He explained that he had been working all day and had not talked to anyone. Still, he was threatened and requested to sign a falsified document. 13 As he refused, he was put in the punishment cell for five days, from 13 to 18 September 2012. There he had to remain seated or standing because the walls and floor were bare concrete. He had to report to the authorities on various occasions, as if he were an especially dangerous inmate. In May 2013, while working in the industrial zone, he was led away by the prison officers who said that he had been reading a banned book. He was put in a punishment cell for three days. Since his release on 1 May 2014, he has been required to report to the local police department for an undetermined period of time. The author has had health problems, especially because of the intracranial pressure resulting from beatings to his head in colony DZD-7. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Protection against intimidation and reprisals 6. The Committee notes with concern the information provided by the author that, on 24 January 2013, his family home was raided by police officers and that family members and guests were subjected to mistreatment. The Committee also notes that the State party did not provide any information to the contrary following the call from the Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures dated 8 February 2013 to abstain from acts of pressure, intimidation or reprisal against the author of the communication and his relatives. The Committee recalls that any act of pressure, intimidation or reprisal against a person who has submitted a communication or his or her relatives constitutes a breach of the State party’s obligations under the Optional Protocol to cooperate with the Committee in good faith in the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant. Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 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. 7.3 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.14 The Committee notes the author’s submission that 13 14 The author does not provide further details on the contents of the document. See, for example, communication No. 2097/2011, Timmer v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 6.3. 7