Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies those complaints by the Chief Prosecutor was plainly inadequate, in that he did not interview a number of relevant witnesses, as outlined in paragraph 25 above. The interview with the author was also unsatisfactory. For example, the author did not get a chance to respond to the contention that the ill-treatment could have been caused by other prisoners. The investigation was plainly not impartial as the Chief Investigator only personally interviewed witnesses who would favor the State. The failings of the Chief Prosecutor in the investigations resemble those that were found to breach the articles 12 and 13 of the CAT in Baraket v. Tunisia (CAT Committee, 60/1996) and Blanco Abad v. Spain (CAT Committee, 59/1996). The Human Rights Committee also found a breach of article 7 due to a State’s failure to undertake a prompt and adequate investigation of torture allegations in Herrera Rubio v. Colombia (Comm. No. 161/1983). Thirdly, the Court of Appeal compounded the poor investigation, by failing to reinstate the investigation, and giving no reasons for its decision. Fourthly, the complaint about prison conditions to the prison authorities was not taken seriously. Indeed, it only resulted in reprisals against the author. The Human Rights Committee has condemned Brazil in Concluding Observations for failing to provide witnesses with protection against reprisals in respect of complaints of torture.355 Finally, the failure of the City Prison doctor to undertake a proper medical examination of the author (see above, paragraph 8) breaches article 7. Any standard medical examination involves the removal of some clothing, and the doctor was plainly not interested in listening or responding to the author’s allegations. The superficial and selective nature of the medical examination rendered it clearly inadequate. Its inadequacy was compounded by the refusal of the prison authorities to permit an independent medical examination (see annex 13), which thwarted the author’s ability to obtain evidence of his ill-treatment. 56. The author’s allegations regarding these breaches of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2(3) are supported by the documentation relating to the complaints, as well as the medical examinations conducted after the author’s release. Breach of article 10 of the ICCPR 57. Article 7 is supplemented by article 10, which details the rights of detainees to receive humane treatment in detention. If any of the above arguments are not accepted with regard to article 7, it is submitted that the above impugned treatment breaches article 10. In respect of the violation of article 10, the author re-alleges his arguments above in paragraphs 39-44, 48, and 53-56 regarding the beatings and the failure to investigate complaints, without repeating them here. The author adds further arguments below of particular relevance to article 10 regarding prison conditions and incommunicado detention. Prison Conditions 58. Numerous statements by the Human Rights Committee indicate that the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners are effectively incorporated within article 10.356 The conditions at City Prison breach numerous provisions of the Standard Minimum Rules. 59. For example, Rule 9 states that each prisoner should, in general, have his or her own cell. Though exceptions are permitted, it is clearly inappropriate to have thirty people in one cell, sharing beds. The overcrowding in City Prison amounts to a breach of article 10. In its Concluding Observation on Portugal, the Human Rights Committee expressed concern in regard to overpopulation of twenty-two percent.357 In City Prison, at times, overpopulation amounted to over fifty 356 See, eg, HRC, Mukong v. Cameroon (Comm. No. 458/91), para. 9.3; HRC, Concluding Observations on the USA, CCPR/C/79/Add. 50, para. 34. 357 HRC, Concluding Observations on Portugal, A/58/40, Vol.1 (2003) 56 at para. 83. 118