CCPR/C/114/D/2234/2013 stand and keep guard at various posts within the colony. While all prisoners are required to carry out this service once or twice a month for approximately two hours, the administration has a practice of forcing political prisoners to do service several times per month for up to seven hours, during which time they are not allowed to leave their assigned place. The author reiterates that often she had to work for nine hours and then “do service” for seven hours. 5.12 The State party contests the author’s account that a particular prison warden humiliated, assaulted and otherwise ill‐treated and tortured her, arguing that the said warden was an instructor in the young offenders’ unit and therefore could not have been in contact with the author. The author submits that she wrote about the abuse in a letter to her daughter smuggled out of prison. Once the report about the author’s abuse was covered by international human rights groups, on 3 January 2007, the prison administration terminated the employment of the warden in question. The author maintains that the above is additional evidence to support was repeatedly placed in punishment cells, claiming that she was a violator of the rules of confinement, but fails to provide any information on how she had allegedly violated the rules of confinement. The State party then dismisses the author’s account of having spent a total of 112 days in solitary confinement, arguing that her account is fabricated and contradictory, but fails to address her allegations that the administration made sure that she would not spent more than 15 days in a row in the punishment cells, by releasing her after 15 days, only to send her back several hours later or the next day. 5.13 The author testified in great detail about the inadequacy of, in particular, the punishment cells and stands by her account, which inadequacy is also highlighted in letters the author had sent to various human rights organizations while still in detention. 5.14 Regarding medical treatment while in prison, the author reiterates that while some treatment was provided, it was in general only when her condition became too serious for the authorities to ignore and after repeated requests for treatment had been rejected. Moreover, the State party has failed to provide any details of the treatment allegedly provided to the author, such as the reasons for the treatment or the results of the various examinations. It has also not adduced any evidence such as medical reports, in support of its claim that it provided adequate medical care. The claim that the author received adequate medical care contradicts reports (see para. 2.14 above) confirming that the author’s health deteriorated significantly as a result of the conditions in which she was held. 5.15 The author submits that, with regard to the surgery performed on her in March 2008, the State party has not provided any evidence in support of its claim that the surgery was medically necessary, and has not identified the treatment or adduced any medical reports that would show that the hysterectomy was necessary. The State party’s failure to provide such information means that, more than six years after the surgery, the author still does not know the reasons for the forced sterilization to which she was subjected. The State party has also failed to demonstrate how it allegedly informed the author about the need for the surgery. Notably, the State party does not expressly refute the author’s submission that she did not agree to the hysterectomy. The State party does not address the extensive expert evidence submitted by the author, which shows that it resulted in permanent physical and severe mental damage. The author maintains that she established a more than credible prima facie case that the hysterectomy was carried out without her consent, caused severe pain and suffering and constituted torture, in violation of article 7. 5.16 The author submits that, during the 23 months for which she was imprisoned, the special procurator visited only on two occasions, on or around 20 September 2006 and on or around 28 March 2007. On both occasions, the administration had the author sent to the punishment cells. During the second visit, the administration released her from the punishment cell and allowed her to meet with the procurator, but, although she raised 11