CCPR/C/118/D/2152/2012 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 assault against a minor. Based on that request, the administration issued a ruling that he should be kept separately from the general population of the detention centre. The author was placed in single cell No. 3 (the punishment cell) from 4 to 6 September in order to ensure his safety. The placement did not constitute a disciplinary measure. The State party maintains that the cell was equipped in accordance with the requirements of the legislation in force, namely it had a metal bed with a wooden cover, attached to the wall, a table and a chair that were bolted to the floor, and there was a shelf for personal items, a tap, a sink and a toilet. 6.2 The State party confirms that there was a loudspeaker in the corridor of the first floor of the detention centre, but maintained that the noise was kept at acceptable levels. The author’s allegations that the loudspeaker was used in a discriminatory manner to interrupt conversations between cells were subjected to verification but could not be confirmed. The State party also maintains that in 2003 the shutters were removed from all cells in detention centres and the windows equipped with glass panels, allowing in natural light and the possibility to read and work. The windows are also big enough to provide fresh air. Further, the detention centre in question has its own heating system, the start of the heating season is established by the municipal authorities and the temperature in all cells is to be no less than 18ºC in winter and between 18ºC and 20ºC in summer. The medical officers of the centre do a daily check of the temperature in the cells. There were no violations of the above rules registered in the period when the author was detained there. 6.3 The State party further submits that between 6 September 2006 and 20 January 2007 the author was held together with five other detainees, who were also considered to be in danger from the general population of the detention centre, most of them being former officers. With regard to the author’s allegations that he was held in a rubber cell and was placed under monitoring as a person inclined to commit suicide, the State party maintained that when placed in detention, the author demonstrated the following characteristics: he had difficulties adapting to the conditions of detention, was unbalanced, closed, secretive, touchy, expressed the intention of harming himself and had an inclination towards suicidal behaviour. Accordingly, based on a recommendation of a standing commission of the detention centre, the author was placed on a monitoring list as a person inclined to commit suicide on 2 September 2006. When he was transferred to penal colony No. 49 to serve his sentence, he was also placed on such a list. 6.4 Regarding the author’s allegations that he was denied walks without reason and that the food was bad, the State party submits that in accordance with article 15 of the internal rules of the detention centre, detainees are entitled to a one-hour walk a day. According to the register of the SIZO the author had been taken for walks every day. He was allowed to bath once a week, for no less than 15 minutes. According to the records, during his stay in the detention centre he never applied for disinfection of his clothes or bed linen. Detained persons receive hot food three times a day and the State party provides general information regarding the food and the rules relating to its preparation. The State party also explains that on days when detainees are taken out to court or for investigative actions, they can receive a dry ration, but prefer to get a hot dinner or lunch upon their return. 6.5 The State party denies that the author suffered from a cold as a result of being held in a rubber cell, since there is no mention of that in his medical records. It provides a list of eight occasions on which the author was examined by the medical service of the detention centre and diagnoses were established (including acute respiratory infections on 20 September 2006 and 21 February 2007, acute respiratory viral infection on 29 May 2007, dermatitis on 2 February 2007 and post-traumatic encephalopathy on 16 June and 4 September 2007) for which he received adequate treatment. There is no record that the 6