CAT/C/35/D/247/2004 Page 7 The claim: 3.1 The complainant claims that the conditions of detention, and the manner the authorities treated him while he was on death row (1994-1998), amounted to a violation of articles 1 (1) and 2 of the Convention. 3.2 Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 3 are also said to have been violated, as the cells where he was held were allegedly overcrowded by a factor of 2 to 4 compared to the possible occupancy, and he – as a former policeman – was held together with ordinary criminals. 3.3 Allegedly, in violation of article 12 of the Convention, the authorities omitted to investigate promptly and impartially deaths of prisoners who awaited execution, “when there were reasonable grounds” that their dead was the consequence of the torture and cruel treatment they were subjected to by the prison authorities. 3.4 Finally, the complainant claims a violation of article 13, because of the State party’s impossibility to secure an impartial examination of the claims of torture and cruel treatment. State party’s obs ervations on admissibility 4.1 The State party contested the admissibility of the communication on 19 July 2004. It recalls that it recognised the Committee’s competence to examine individual complaints on 4 February 2002, and that accordingly, the Committee is only competent to examine complaints submitted against Azerbaijan after that date. Accordingly, the State party considers the complainant’s communication to be inadmissible. Complainant’s comments 5.1 By letter of 6 November 2004, the complainant concedes that the events complained of occurred before the State party’s acceptance of the Committee’s competence to examine individual complaints against it. According to him, however, the ratione temporis rule does not apply if violations continue after the date of entry into force of the procedure for the State party. As example, he refers to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee (case of K. and K. v. Hungary, Communication No. 520/1992, Inadmissibility decision adopted on 7 April 1994, paragraph 6.4). 5.2 On the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, he reiterates that he did not believe in the effectiveness of the procedures in the State party. In support of this statement, he names five former death row prisoners who were granted new trials in 2002-2004. Allegedly, all of them had complained of torture and ill- treatment in detention, but the courts allegedly ignored all of their claims and confirmed their life sentences 4 . 4 According to the complainant, only in one occasion a life sentence was commuted to 15 years of imprisonment, due to a decriminalization of an offence.