CCPR/C/123/D/2247/2013 5.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 5.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s assertion that all available and effective domestic remedies have been exhausted. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 5.4 The Committee notes the author’s submission that the State party violated its obligations under article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, since it failed to investigate the alleged violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore considers that the author’s claim of violation under article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant will be considered in conjunction with article 7. 5.5 The Committee considers that the communication is admissible as far as it raises issues under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and article 14 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee considers that the author’s claim about the conditions of his detention also appears to raise issues under article 10 (1) of the Covenant. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Considerations of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the author, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that upon arrival to the detention centre, he was forced to stand facing the wall for seven hours, and that he did not receive food and water during the first 30 hours following his arrest. The Committee also notes the author’s claims that he spent 13 days in an overcrowded, small cell (see para. 2.3 above) without bedding, chairs, heating and proper ventilation, under extremely poor sanitary conditions. For the full duration of his detention, he was obliged to sleep on a wooden board with up to 10 other people and was not allowed to leave his cell for daily walks. The temperature inside varied between 10°C and 14°C, which resulted in him being cold and made it difficult to sleep. The author also claims that the toilet was not separated from the common area of the cell, and that he had to use the toilet in full view of other detainees. The author claims that overall, the conditions of his detention, including the deprivation of food, water and sleep as outlined above, had caused him physical and mental suffering and amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.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, and they must be treated humanely in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). 4 The Committee notes that the State party has not contested the information provided by the author on his conditions of detention, nor has it provided any additional information in this respect. In these circumstances, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. The Committee therefore considers that the conditions of detention that the author was subjected to amounted to a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 6.3 The Committee also considers, as it has repeatedly found in respect of similar substantiated claims, 5 that the author’s conditions of detention as described violated his right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human 3 4 5 4 The Committee notes that these allegations are consistent with previous findings of the Committee against Torture regarding poor conditions in places of deprivation of liberty in Belarus, including overcrowding, poor diet, lack of access to facilities for basic hygiene and inadequate medical care (see CAT/C/BLR/CO/4, para. 19), and that the Prosecutor’s Office, in its response, partially acknowledged those shortcomings. See Aminov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/117/D/2220/2012), para. 9.3. See Kozulin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008), para. 9.5, and Bobrov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/122/D/2181/2012).