CCPR/C/118/D/2152/2012 half underground and lacking daylight because the windows were covered with metal sheets with small holes in them, and that he was denied visits to the bathing facilities while he was held there. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the author was only placed in a punishment cell from 4 to 6 September 2006, as a protection measure, after he requested to be placed under protection owing to his being a former employee of the penitentiary and to the nature of the crime he was accused of committing. The State party also denies the existence of cells where access to daylight would be blocked in the time period described by the author. 12.4 The Committee also notes the author’s submission that, after being released from the punishment cell, he was placed in other cells, including cells designed for two persons that he had to share with two other detainees; that in January 2007, he was given a lice-ridden mattress, which caused him to develop a severe skin condition and that his requests to obtain a new mattress were denied; that he was not taken for exercise outside the cell every day and that he did not have regular access to bathing facilities. The Committee notes that the State party has denied the above allegations, claiming that according to its records, the author was taken for walks on a daily basis, that he always had an individual bed to sleep on and that there were no recorded complaints regarding the condition of his mattress. 12.5 The Committee also notes the author’s claims that the employees of the pretrial detention centre deliberately disclosed the circumstances of the accusations against him to the other detainees, that he was constantly threatened by other detainees and that as a result of the constant pressure, on 10 June 2007, he attempted to commit suicide. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that there was no record of any conflicts between the author and his cellmates in the pretrial detention centre; that the author never filed any complaints regarding degrading treatment by other detainees and that there was no record of a suicide attempt, but that the author was unstable and prone to self-harm, and that for that reason he had been placed under monitoring as a person at risk of suicide. 12.6 In the light of the State party’s refutation of the allegations of the author and relevant decisions of the courts, as well as the author’s failure to produce documentary evidence in support of his allegations, or indicate if and why the decisions of the courts were arbitrary or unreasonable, the Committee cannot conclude that conditions in the detention centre or the State party’s actions with regard to the author constituted a violation of his rights under articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. 12.7 The Committee notes the author’s submission that while in the detention centre he was kept together with individuals with previous convictions, despite the fact that at the time he had the status of only being accused, in violation of his right under article 10 (2) (a) of the Covenant. The Committee, however, notes the State party’s explanation that upon arrival, the author requested the administration to take measures to ensure his safety, because he was a former employee of the same detention centre and had committed a sexual crime against a minor; that based on his request the administration issued a ruling that he should be kept separately from the general population and that subsequently he was placed in a cell with other former officers accused of committing crimes and with inmates who were considered to be under threat from the rest of the detainees for other reasons (i.e. psychosocial disabilities). The Committee recalls that the State party is under the obligation to ensure segregation of accused persons from convicted ones, in order to ensure their status as unconvicted persons who enjoy the right to be presumed innocent, as stated in article 14 (2), as well as to ensure the rights guaranteed by article 10 (2) of the Covenant. 9 The Committee observes, however, that the State party is not required to make a distinction between the pretrial detainees with and without previous convictions, unless it is necessary to ensure the security and safety of a detainee, or is necessary for the proper administration 9 See general comment No. 21 (1992) on humane treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, para. 9. 11