claims, the Committee considered them to be admissible. (b) Filed a civil action with the Magistrate responsible for judicial investigation and information; 5.3 On 8 July 1992, therefore, the Committee declared the communication admissible, reserving however the right to review its decision pursuant to rule 93, paragraph 4, of the rules of procedure, in respect of the author's claim under article 7. (c) Directly filed a complaint with the competent tribunal against those held to be responsible for the acts; (d) Charged the responsible officers of having abused their official function, pursuant to article 140 of the Criminal Code; The State party's request for review of admissibility and observations on the merits, and the author's comments thereon (e) Invoked articles 275 and 290 of the Criminal Code, which provide protection against attacks on the physical integrity of the person; 6.1 In its submission under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, the State party argues that the reasons for declaring the communication admissible are no longer valid and accordingly requests the Committee to review its decision on admissibility. (f) Invoked articles 291 and 308 of the same Code, which provide protection against attacks on the liberty and security of persons; (g) Petitioned the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court under article 9 of Ordinance 72/6 of 26 August 1972, as amended by Law 75/16 of 8 December 1975 and Law 76/28 of 14 December 1976, if he considered himself to be a victim of an administrative wrong. 6.2 After once again questioning the correctness of the author's version of the facts, it addresses the author's claims. As to the alleged violation of article 7 on account of the conditions of the author's detention, it notes that article 1 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment stipulates that the term "torture" does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions. It adds that the situation and comfort in the country's prisons must be linked to the state of economic and social development of Cameroon. 4.3 In respect of the legal basis for the arrest of Mr. Mukong in 1988 and 1990, the State party notes that Ordinance 62/OF/18 was abrogated by Law No. 090/046 of 19 December 1990. The Committee's decision on admissibility 5.1 During its forty-fifth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It took note of the State party's contention that the author had not availed himself of judicial remedies in respect of claims of ill-treatment and of inhuman and degrading treatment in detention. The Committee observed, however, that the State party had merely listed in abstracto the existence of several remedies without relating them to the circumstances of the case, and without showing how they might provide effective redress in the circumstances of the case. This applied in particular to the period of detention from 26 February to 23 March 1990, when the author was allegedly held incommunicado and subjected to threats. The Committee concluded that in the circumstances, it could not be held against the author if he did not petition the courts after his release and that, in the absence of further information from the State party, there was no further effective domestic remedy to exhaust. 6.3 The State party categorically denies that Mr. Mukong was, at any time during his detention in June 1988 or in February/March 1990, subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It submits that the burden of proof for his allegations lies with the author, and that his reference to Amnesty International reports about instances of torture in Cameroonian prisons cannot constitute acceptable proof. The State party includes a report of an investigation into the author's allegations carried out by the National Centre for Studies and Research which concludes that the prison authorities in Douala actually sought to improve the prison conditions after the arrest of the author and a number of codefendants, and that the "excessive heat" in the author's cell (above 40°C) is simply the result of the climatic conditions in Douala during the month of February. 6.4 The State party reiterates that the author has failed to exhaust available remedies, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol and article 41 (c) of the Covenant. It takes issue with the Committee's jurisprudence that domestic remedies must not only be available but also effective. It further dismisses the author's contention as reflected in paragraph 2.9 above and refers in this context to section 8 (2) of 5.2 As to the author's claims under articles 9, 14 and 19, the Committee notes that the simple abrogation of a law considered incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant – i.e. Ordinance 62/OF/18 of 12 March 1962 – did not constitute an effective remedy for any violations of an individual's rights which had previously occurred under the abrogated law. As the State party had not shown the existence of other remedies in respect of these 89