PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture For punishment to be degrading, the humiliation or debasement involved must exceed a particular level and must, in any event, entail other elements beyond the mere fact of deprivation of liberty. As such, in order for detention to violate article 7 of the ICCPR, it is not sufficient for a prisoner to only be deprived of their liberty; there must be an added element of ‘humiliation or debasement’ in the treatment of the individual. The author submits that the conditions of his detention went far beyond those inherent in the deprivation of liberty, and amounted to a breach of article 7. 51. In the case of Deidrick v. Jamaica (Comm. No. 619/1995), the author of the Communication was locked in his cell for twenty-three hours a day, without a mattress, bedding, adequate sanitation, natural light, recreational facilities, decent food or adequate medical care, and this amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment. The conditions of detention in Deidrick are analogous to the conditions of detention suffered by the author in this case. The conditions are also similar to those described in Mukong v. Cameroon (Comm. No. 458/1991), Edwards v. Jamaica (Comm. No. 529/1993), and Brown v. Jamaica (Comm. No. 775/1997); the Human Rights Committee found that the relevant prison conditions breached article 7 in all three of those cases. 52. The evidence of the conditions described is found in the complaints submitted (without satisfaction) on behalf of the author to the prison authorities (see Annex 15), and to the Chief Prosecutor (see Annexes 22 and 25). NGO’s report also backs up the evidence of the author on this matter (see Annex 14) Fifth Breach of article 7: Failure to investigate complaints 53. The State party has failed in its duty under article 7, in conjunction with the duty to provide a remedy under article 2(3), to properly investigate the claims of ill-treatment of the author. At paragraph 14 of General Comment 20, the Human Rights Committee stated: Article 7 should be read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. In their reports, States parties should indicate how their legal system effectively guarantees the immediate termination of all the acts prohibited by article 7 as well as appropriate redress. The right to lodge complaints against maltreatment prohibited by article 7 must be recognized in the domestic law. Complaints must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities so as to make the remedy effective. The reports of States parties should provide specific information on the remedies available to victims of maltreatment and the procedure that complainants must follow, and statistics on the number of complaint and how they have been dealt with. 54. Most cases on this issue have arisen under the analogous provisions of the Convention Against Torture, articles 12 and 13, rather than under the ICCPR. As noted above (paragraph 36), it is submitted that the Human Rights Committee should be influenced by the case law developed under the CAT. 55. The States failure in this regard is evident in a number of ways. First, the Chief Prosecutor failed to respond promptly to either of the submitted complaints. In both cases, no official reply was received by the author for approximately eight months (see Annexes 24 and 26). No justification has ever been given for the delay in interviewing the author; he was not interviewed until 14 months after the submission of his second complaint. Delays in an investigation also breached CAT in Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria (CAT Committee, Comm. No. 8/1991). Secondly, the investigation of 355 HRC, Concluding Observations on Brazil, (1996) CCPR/C/79/Add. 66, para. 12. 117