CCPR/C/115/D/2223/2012 the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the authors.2 The Committee notes the author’s submission that there are no effective remedies available to him in the State party with regard to his claims under articles 7, 10 and 18 of the Covenant. The Committee further notes the State party’s assertion that the author’s case had been carefully considered by the relevant law enforcement bodies of Turkmenistan and no reason had been found to appeal the court decision and that the State party has not contested the author’s argumentation concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that in the present case it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 6.4 The Committee considers that the author’s claims raising issues under articles 7, 10 and 18 (1) of the Covenant are sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, declares them admissible and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claims concerning the deplorable conditions he endured at the LBK-12 prison during his incarceration from 1 January 2011 to 8 May 2012, including his placement in quarantine for 10 days immediately upon his arrival and the harsh climatic conditions in summer and winter. The Committee also notes that during his incarceration the author was infected with tuberculosis. The Committee further notes that these allegations were not contested by the State party and that they are consistent with the findings of the Committee against Torture in its most recent concluding observations in regard to the State party.3 7.3 The Committee recalls that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; they must be treated in accordance with, inter alia, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.4 In the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee finds that confining the author in such conditions constitutes a violation of his right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person under article 10 (1) of the Covenant.5 7.4 In the light of this finding in respect of article 10, a provision of the Covenant dealing specifically with the situation of persons deprived of their liberty and encompassing for such persons the elements set out generally in article 7, the Committee concludes that it will not consider separately any possible claims made under article 7 in this regard.6 7.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant have been violated due to the absence in the State party of an alternative to 2 3 4 5 6 See, for example, communication No. 2097/2011, Timmer v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 6.3. See CAT/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 19. See, for example, communication No. 1520/2006, Mwamba v. Zambia, Views adopted on 10 March 2010, para. 6.4. See, for example, communications No. 1530/2006, Bozbey v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 27 October 2010, para. 7.3 and No. 2218/2012, Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2015, para. 7.3. See, for example, Mwamba v. Zambia, para. 6.4. 5