CCPR/C/115/D/2221/2012 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.14 The Committee notes the author’s submission that there are no effective remedies available to him in the State party in regard to his claims under articles 7, 10 and 18 of the Covenant. The Committee further notes the State party’s assertion of 17 March 2014 that the author’s case had been “carefully considered by the relevant law enforcement bodies of Turkmenistan and [that] no reason had been found to appeal the court decision” and that it has not contested the author’s argument concerning the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that in the present case, it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b), of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 6.4 The Committee considers that the author’s claims raising issues under articles 7, 10 and 18 (1) of the Covenant are sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, declares them admissible and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration on the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5(1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he was ill-treated by the prison staff while in the LBK-12 prison in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. It notes that the author has provided a detailed description of the manner in which he was ill-treated and that he has provided the identity of the perpetrator. The Committee also notes that the author stated that he was beaten on different parts of his body on at least in two occasions, including his face and his head; that he was once kicked in the chest; and that he was often beaten with a wire on his back. The Committee further notes the author’s allegation regarding the lack of adequate mechanisms for investigating torture and ill-treatment in the State party. The State party has not refuted these allegations, nor provided any information in this respect. In the circumstances, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts as presented reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 7.3 The Committee further notes the author’s claims concerning the deplorable prison conditions at the LBK-12 prison, including his placement upon arrival in quarantine for 10 days, the harsh climatic conditions the author was exposed to during an extremely hot summer and an extremely cold winter, and the fact that he was obliged to use the outdoor showers during winter, when it was very cold.15 The Committee notes that these allegations were not contested by the State party and that they are consistent with the findings of the 14 15 6 See, for example, communication No. 2097/2011, Timmer v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 6.3. See para. 3.2.