CCPR/C/114/D/2234/2013 administration of the facility or to the procurator. The administration of the facility conducts daily rounds and conducts interviews with the detainees, inquiring specifically regarding the treatment by the personnel. On a weekly basis, the facility is visited by the special procurator for prison oversight (who also conducts interviews with the convicted individuals with the goal of identifying prohibited treatment, violations of conditions of detention etc.). The facility has a box for correspondence placed in a highly visible location, addressed to the procurator, which can only be accessed by a member of the procurator’s office. 4.8 The State party submits that, while serving her sentence, the author never announced any “hunger strikes” and was never shown off in a state of being suspended from a wall to law students. Visits to penal colonies are not on the curriculum of the law school. 4.9 In response to the allegations that the author was placed in solitary confinement on 10 occasions and that she spent 112 days in various isolations cells, the State party submits that the author was an inveterate violator of the rules of confinement, on numerous occasions the facility’s personnel had to conduct conversations with her of an instructive and preventive nature, but she did not take any positive lessons for herself and continued to intentionally violate the rules of confinement. After repeated warnings for gross violations of rules of confinement the administration of the facility transferred the detainee to the disciplinary unit for 15 days. 4.10 The State party submits that the detention facility UYa 64-7 is located within the centre of Tashkent and connected to the municipal water and heating supplies and there were no problems with the heating of the various blocks (including the disciplinary units) of the facility. Throughout its premises, the windows have panes of glass and the floors are made of wood and are dry. The staff of the disciplinary unit conducts daily rounds inspecting the premises. In the event that the cells show any need for repair, the detainees are transferred to another cell. During the period that the author spent in the disciplinary unit, she did not make any complaints. Her allegations regarding the supposed instances of prohibited treatment by the facility’s personnel were investigated, but could not be confirmed. The author’s complaint is fabricated, which is confirmed by the contradictory nature of her allegations. For example, she indicated in one paragraph that after 58 days of continuous detention in the a solitary cell in November and December, she lost consciousness and was only then transferred to the medical unit; in another paragraph she claims that she spent up to 40 days in solitary confinement. 4.11 The State party maintains that, while she stayed in solitary confinement, the author was not subjected to any physical or psychological pressure from the administration of the facility, nor did she make any complaints or statements to the administration, including about any deterioration of her health. Her claims that she was forced to stand naked in the cold in February 2007 in the hallway “have no basis in fact and are of an obviously slanderous nature towards the employees of the facility”. Regarding the allegations that the author was refused medical attention, the State party submits that, upon arrival at the detention facility, the author underwent a medical examination. While serving her sentence she was under regular follow-up care and, at the recommendation of a doctor, she was provided with qualified medical attention on numerous occasions, both as an outpatient and an inpatient. Medical staff of the correctional facility and specialists from the Ministry of Health conducted examinations of the author using different diagnostic techniques and she received appropriate medical care for her condition. 4.12 The State party maintains that, with regard to the medically necessary operation performed on the author in March 2008, she had been notified in a timely manner about the necessity of the upcoming surgical procedure to be conducted in a civilian facility, and that this surgical procedure could not have been performed without her consent. After the surgery, she was returned to the correctional facility in a satisfactory condition in April 8