CAT/C/63/D/678/2015 request a copy of the case file when a lawyer takes on a criminal case, and the lawyer’s letter did not give any sign of an alleged violation of article 16 of the Convention. All case documents were forwarded to the complainant’s lawyer on 29 November 2006. 6.8 The State party notes that there is no mention of allegations of ill-treatment in the court judgment or court records pertaining to the main hearing on 7 January 2008. This means that it is unlikely that such accusations were made, and as the complainant was represented by a lawyer, it is to be expected that the lawyer would have followed up on the accusations had they been made. Moreover, the State party cannot see that the report by the complainant — five years after the incident — gave reason to conduct a more comprehensive investigation than that carried out by the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs. It also submits that it has clear instructions and provisions in place, issued by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, should any officer come across or suspect degrading treatment of detainees. 6.9 With regard to the alleged violations of articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the State party reiterates that these are not subject to individual complaints because of their general, extensive scope. Since the complainant’s need for protection against ill-treatment is adequately safeguarded under articles 12 and 16, the State party cannot see the need to extend articles 10 and 11 to individual complaints. Such an extension would, in the State party’s opinion, represent an extension of the scope of the said articles without a legal basis in the Convention. Nevertheless, the State party provided detailed information with respect to the education and instructions provided to the police officers who potentially could have had access to the complainant the night he was detained, as well as rules and instructions for the treatment of persons in custody. 20 Furthermore, the State party refers to the findings of the inspection in October 2005, by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of the police holding cells, where the complainant was held on 8 to 9 November 2006 — which concluded that that “the guidelines set out in circular G-67/2000 were being correctly applied”.21 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In his submission dated 8 February 2016, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on the merits of the case. 7.2 The complainant notes that it is unlikely that the injuries were caused by reasonable use of force, as explained by the State party, as the nature of the injuries suggests they were caused by the complainant’s left temple hitting a hard or sharp object. In any case, those injuries should have been recorded in the police report or the prison journal. The complainant refers to the copy of the prison journal from the night of the incident, where a wound on the chin of another detainee is reported but there is no report of injuries to the complainant. Since there is no plausible explanation as to why the injuries were not reported, the complainant submits that there has been a violation of article 16 of the Convention. 7.3 The complainant refers to the State party’s suggestion that the complainant’s mental condition is relevant when assessing his credibility, and notes that because of the risk that statements from persons suffering from mental illness will be met with such objections, it is especially important that police reports and journals contain very accurate information about all objective factors related to injuries. The complainant’s injuries are not hallucinations and should have been reported along with a precise description of the objects that caused them. The complainant also refers to section 3-2 of the regulations for the police, in which it is stated that if use of force by the police results in injury/damage to a person or property, or the situation suggests that police action may give rise to complaints, the police officer is to make a written report of the incident to his supervisors 20 21 8 Copies of the 2006 education curriculum for custody officers, and extracts from the education curriculum for police officers (with English translations). Circular G-67/2000 was issued by the Ministry of Justice and the Police and contained guidelines for access to health-care services by persons deprived of liberty. In particular, there was a requirement in the circular that access to health-care staff should be provided as soon as possible, but not later than two hours after the detained person’s arrival at the police establishment and/or after requesting care.