CCPR/C/122/D/2182/2012 the concepts covered by article 7, nor does the Committee consider it necessary to draw up a list of prohibited acts or to establish sharp distinctions between the different kinds of punishment or treatment; the distinctions depend on the nature, purpose and severity of the treatment applied.” In the present case, the Committee observes that the author was brought into the detention facility at 2.40 a.m. for an unspecified administrative offence and was released seven hours later. The Committee is of the view that the allegations raised by the author regarding the detention conditions during his seven-hour overnight stay are not sufficient to establish a claim under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore concludes that the author has failed to substantiate his claim under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility, and declares the claim inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. In these circumstances, the Committee also considers that the author’s claim under article 14 (1) of the Covenant is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. 5