CAT/C/68/D/818/2017 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the failure to inform the complainant of her rights when she was arrested is outside the material scope of the Convention, since that matter should be considered under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights rather than the Convention. The Committee also notes, however, that in its general comment No. 2 (2008) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, it specifies that certain basic guarantees apply to all persons deprived of their liberty. Such guarantees include the right of detainees to be informed of their rights and the right promptly to receive independent legal assistance and independent medical assistance.10 In addition, the Committee notes that, in the past, it has found that failures by a State party to respect such guarantees, including in cases of detention in police custody, constitute violations of article 11 of the Convention. 11 The Committee therefore concludes that the complaint is, on this point, compatible ratione materiae with the Convention, in that the Committee is not bound by the parties’ legal allegations but only, in principle, by their factual allegations. 7.3 The Committee notes, however, that the State party argues that the complainant did not exhaust domestic remedies, since she did not claim before the domestic courts that she had not been informed of her rights when she was arrested. In the absence of any information to the contrary from the complainant, the Committee declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 7.4 The Committee notes that the complainant also claims that other guarantees were violated, such as the right to receive medical care, which she allegedly requested several times while in custody, and that the alleged violation of that guarantee was raised before the domestic courts, as indicated in the application for reconsideration that she submitted to the Court of Investigation. As the State party did not comment on this claim, the Committee is of the opinion that domestic remedies have been exhausted and that there are no obstacles to the admissibility of the claim. 7.5 The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the communication is manifestly unfounded and abusive, and that it is thus inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The Committee notes that the complainant has failed to substantiate her complaint under article 13 of the Convention and finds it inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention. 7.6 The Committee observes, however, that the complainant raises substantive issues under articles 1, 2, 11, 12 and 16 of the Convention and that those issues should be examined on the merits. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complainant’s allegations submitted under articles 1, 2, 11, 12 and 16 admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 Before considering the allegations made by the complainant, the Committee must determine whether the acts to which she was subjected constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of article 16 of the Convention. The Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that she was hit by police officers when she was arrested, including by being 10 11 GE.20-00488 Paragraph 13. Aarrass v. Morocco (CAT/C/52/D/477/2011), para. 10.3; E.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/56/D/578/2013), para. 7.6; and Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/493/2012), para. 8.4. 5