CAT/C/63/D/678/2015 The State party submits that the complainant’s allegations cannot be properly assessed without having due regard to his psychiatric history. 6.4 With regard to the question of medical care, the State party rejects the complainant’s allegation that the police officers perceived the complainant to be mentally ill because the police activity log for his incident stated “Illness: psychiatric”. The State party submits that this line was inserted by the telephone operator who initially received the telephone call reporting the complainant’s incident on 8 November 2006. This was done on the basis of the information provided by the caller to the operator, and was not based on an assessment by the police of the complainant. As regards the claim that the complainant requested medical care, the State party notes that there is no documentation in the case to support that claim. On the contrary, during the interview on 9 November 2006, the complainant did not say anything to the police about the need for medical assistance, or about failure to provide it, except that he was “very tired” and “needed a tablet”. Moreover, the officers checked on the complainant every 30 minutes in his holding cell, so they would have become aware of a request for medical assistance and would have made a record of such a request in the prison journal. A copy of the prison journal from 9 November 2006 shows that medical care was provided that night to a person in a different cell for a wound on his chin. Yet there is no record of the complainant making any requests for medical care while in the holding cell. 6.5 With regard to the need that the complainant invoked for psychiatric treatment on the night of 8 November 2006, the State party points out that psychiatrists at the accident and emergency units do not accept patients who are under the influence of alcohol or other substances because of the difficulty of assessing their mental health while they are intoxicated. Since the complainant was under the influence of alcohol on the night he was arrested, which is supported by the custody records and the police report from the night of the incident, he would in any case have had to wait until the following day before he could have met with a doctor for his mental illness. As for the physical injuries sustained by the complainant in detention, they were not of such severity that they would justify putting the police officers and medical personnel at risk, considering the complainant’s aggressive behaviour when he was brought into the police station. 6.6 The State party notes that the complainant’s stay in his cell was limited to 12 hours overnight. The State party refers to the custody record from which it follows that the complainant was brought to the custody unit at 9.58 p.m. on 8 November 2006. The interview with the complainant took place at 10 a.m. on 9 November 2006, after which he was released. During the period of 12 hours, the officers on duty inspected the complainant every 30 minutes, which is a standard procedure for detainees who are intoxicated. On this basis, the State party submits that the complainant’s suffering during the stay in his holding cell did not go beyond the inevitable element of suffering connected with detention in a situation such as the matter at hand. 6.7 With regard to the allegations of violation of article 12 of the Convention, the State party rejects the complainant’s assertion that the police should have investigated “the incident in 2006, on the basis of the complainant’s statement to the police that something happened to him while in custody and of the enquiry by his lawyer shortly afterwards”. 19 The State party submits that since the injuries were indeed caused by the police, there was no reason to believe that the injuries were the result of anything but the use of legitimate force. The statement “something happened” does not contain any suggestion or sign that the complainant was sought out at night by police officers who beat him. If anything, the complainant’s statement that he would speak to his lawyer gave reason to expect that the complainant would revert to the police with any complaints, if relevant. As to the complainant’s lawyer’s 15 November 2006 request for “all documents relating to the apprehension, including logs, any interviews, reports etc.”, it is standard procedure to 19 During the interview with the police on 9 November 2006, before being released, to the question “Did anything special happen to you in the police car or in the holding cell?”, the complainant answered: “I don’t know. I’m not ready to talk about this.” When asked what he meant by that, the complainant said: “Something happened, but I now wish to speak to my lawyer. Something happened in the holding cell too.” 7