CCPR/C/118/D/2299/2013 author was contrary to the advice of the Municipality’s doctor, which stated that the author was not so ill as to require him to be sent to the sick bay. Given that background, the Court concluded that, even if the author were in need of shelter, the monthly allowance of €375 granted by the Municipality and the medical treatment given in a medical centre was, in the circumstances, sufficient as a temporary measure. 2.13 On 3 January 2013, the author requested the Municipality to reconsider his request for shelter under the Work and Social Assistance Act by increasing to €450 the monthly amount granted to him as social support. On 24 May 2013, the Municipality rejected the author’s request. It stated that he had received €375 each month from the Municipality’s fund (of the total, €200 was intended for shelter and €175 for food), which in July 2012 was increased to €450; that in March 2013 that sum was reduced to €225 per month; and that he also received support from a church. The Municipality concluded that the amount of the author’s allowance should not be changed. On 5 June 2013, the author lodged an objection against that decision before the Municipality. 2.14 The author submits that, between March and December 2013, he also received €200 per month from a church. Because of this supplement, he was able to pay the rent on his room and have some money for food. He claims that the allowance granted by the Municipality since March 2013 was insufficient for his subsistence since he was paying €250 per month in rent. 2.15 On 19 August 2013, the Municipality rejected the author’s objection against its decision of 24 May 2013 (see para. 2.13). The author’s appeal against the decision and a request for interim measures were denied by the Amsterdam District Court on 19 December 2013. The author appealed the decision before the Central Appeals Court, claiming, inter alia, that he should be given at least €530 for food and rent. 2.16 On the same day of the appeal, the author submitted a request for interim measures before the Central Appeals Court, as a result of which the parties reached an agreement on 26 February 2014 to the effect that he would receive a subsistence benefit of €450 per month from the Municipality starting in January 2014, while his appeal was pending before the Court. 2.17 The author claims that he exhausted domestic remedies with the Central Appeals Court’s decision of 12 June 2012. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that, by refusing his request for shelter and benefits, the State party violated his rights under articles 7, 17 and 26 of the Covenant. 3.2 The author alleges that refusing shelter and social benefits to a man with HIV because he lacks a residence permit amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment, which is contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. Because of this refusal, the author is obliged each evening to search for a place to stay. Furthermore, he is unable to follow his physician’s instructions regarding his medical treatment, which include eating regular and balanced meals and getting regular rest at night. As a result, he lives in the terrifying knowledge that the protective effect of the medication will be undermined and cost him his life. He points out that his communication does not relate to the granting of his residence permit. Rather, since he is allowed to remain in the State party while the proceedings concerning the renewal of his residence permit are pending, the State party should afford him treatment that takes into account his health conditions and particular circumstances. The State party’s 4