PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture a. In exposing him to severe beatings and other ill-treatment during his interrogation at the City Police Station. b. In keeping him in incommunicado detention and solitary confinement for four consecutive days at City Police Station. c. In exposing him to beatings and other ill-treatment at City Prison d. In exposing him to inhuman and degrading conditions of incarceration at City Prison. e. In failing to properly investigate his allegations of ill-treatment at both City Police Station and City Prison. 38. In addition, and in the alternative, it is argued that the above circumstances amount to a breach of article 10 of the ICCPR (see below paragraph 57). First Breach of article 7: Beatings at City Police Station 39. The author submits that the accumulation of his treatment while in the City Police Station amounts to torture, or at least cruel inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to article 7 of the ICCPR. 40. The author was subjected to beatings with club and batons at City Police Station. In Bailey v. Jamaica (Comm. No. 334/1988), the Human Rights Committee held that severe and systematic beatings with clubs, iron pipes and batons, which caused severe physical trauma (including bruises and scarring and probably broken bones) breached article 7.350 The lack of medical treatment in Bailey, as occurred in the author’s circumstances, also breached article 7. As noted, the author was, at least twice, beaten unconscious, which was found to breach article 7 in Linton v. Jamaica (Comm. No. 255/1987). 41. At City Police Station, the author was subjected to a mock execution. Mock executions administered with other forms of cruel and inhuman treatment were deemed to amount to cruel and inhuman treatment in Linton v. Jamaica (Comm. No. 255/1987). In General Comment 20, the Human Rights Committee held at paragraph 11 that “State parties should ensure that any places of detention be free from any equipment liable to be used for inflicting torture or ill-treatment”. The City Police Station’s possession of a mock electric chair manifestly contradicts this statement. Death threats, as experienced by the author in the form of the mock execution, and on the day that the author signed the false confession, also breach article 7. For example, in Hylton v. Jamaica (Comm. No. 407/1990), severe beatings coupled with death threats were found to breach article 7. 42. The author submits that being required to stand for great lengths of time whilst being deprived of food and water amounts at least to inhuman and degrading treatment.351 The degrading nature of the treatment is exacerbated by the fact that the author was naked at the time, adding to the extreme vulnerability of his situation. 43. State X may argue that as the National Security and Public Order Act authorizes the interrogation of individuals in the case of a threat to the community, the interrogation of the author was valid. However, article 7 is a non-derogable right and consequently State X is obliged, in all circumstances, to respect its obligations under article 7. In General Comment 20 at paragraph 3, the Human Rights Committee stated that “no justification or extenuating circumstances may be invoked to excuse a violation of article 7 for any reasons, including those based on an order from a superior officer or public authority”. Furthermore, article 2 of the CAT underlines that torture 350 It is always advisable to include the number of the paragraph of the decision to which reference is made, behind the name and number of the communication. 351 ECtHR, Ireland v. United Kingdom, No. 5310/71, (18 January 1978). 115