CAT/C/55/D/522/2012 from the toilet to avoid dehydration. The Committee notes that the treatment inflicted on the complainant was probably aimed at forcing a confession from him, since on 6 July 2010 he was asked to sign a statement of uncertain content; he reluctantly agreed to do so because he was completely exhausted. 7.3 Given the specific circumstances surrounding the case, on the basis of the information at its disposal and in the absence of any refutation by the State party, the Committee concludes that the treatment to which the complainant was subjected, including the conditions of his detention and the denial of medical care, constitute acts of torture, within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 7.4 The Committee further notes that, in addition to the abuse referred to above, the complainant was subjected to humiliating and punitive treatment, including an attempt to force a stone into his mouth to stifle his cries; being spat at in the face by the head of the National Intelligence Service; and the macabre and barbaric episode when officers tried to make him swallow a portion of his ear lobe, which had been cut off with bicycle pliers. The Committee also notes that the complainant was deprived of his right to visits from his family and his lawyer and his right to medical care. He was not brought before a judge until five days after his arrest. The State party has described only the part of the proceedings relating to the trial and the complainant ’s conviction; it has abstained from commenting on his arrest and detention in the premises of the National Intelligence Service between 1 and 6 July 2010, during which time he was deprived of all judicial safeguards and tortured. The Committee concludes that these acts also constitute a violation of article 1 of the Convention. 7.5 Regarding article 16, the Committee has taken note of the complainant ’s claim that, owing to overcrowding, the conditions of detention to which he was exposed at Mpimba prison, where he was transferred on 6 July 2010 and held for more than 15 months, were appalling. Furthermore, the complainant did not receive the medical care his condition required. The Committee recalls its concluding observations on the State party’s second periodic report, in which it expressed its alarm at the conditions of detention in places of deprivation of liberty (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 15). In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that all the detention conditions to which the complainant was exposed at Mbpimba prison from 6 July 2010 to 24 October 2011 constituted a separate violation of article 16 of the Convention. 7.6 The complainant also invokes article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which the State party should have taken “effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction ”. The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant was severely beaten, then detained without immediately being allowed to contact his family or being given access to legal or medical assistance. It was not until 6 July 2010 that the complainant was finally brought before a judge and informed of the charges against him. The State party has produced no item of material evidence, such as relevant registers, capable of refuting the complainant’s claims. Accordingly, the Committee finds a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention. 18 7.7 The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 has been violated, inasmuch as the State party failed to properly monitor the treatment he received during his detention. The complainant claims, in particular, that he was not informed of the charges against him, that he did not have access to a lawyer during his detention at the premises of the National Intelligence Service and that he was not brought before a judge during his detention. He further claims that, as it was materially impossible for him to assert his rights through legal channels, he was __________________ 18 GE.15-16176 See communication No. 514/2012, Niyonzima v. Burundi, decision adopted on 21 November 2014, para. 8.3. 13/15