CCPR/C/132/D/2711/2015 Advance unedited version 5.3 The Committee notes that State party’s submission that this communication is inadmissible since the author is a national of Poland and is not subject to the State party’s jurisdiction. The Committee recalls that article 1 of the Optional Protocol applies to individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the State concerned who claim to be victims of a violation by that State of their rights under the Covenant, regardless of their nationality.3 Accordingly, and since the author was in the relevant period in custody under the jurisdiction of the State Party, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 1 of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 5.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that by dismissing her complaint, the domestic courts violated her rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee notes that the author submitted a claim under article 14 (1) of the Covenant stemming from the same events in her previous communication to the Committee in 2007, claiming a failure by domestic authorities to take her before a judge during her detention, which was examined in 2013 and found inadmissible. The Committee finds it regrettable that the author failed to inform the Committee at the outset of the present communication that she had previously submitted another communication relating to the same events, even if the claims and facts now presented in this communication are different from her previous one. 5.5 As to the alleged violation of the author’s rights under articles 2, 3, 14 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that these claims have been insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5.6 The Committee considers that the author’s claim under articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant relating to conditions of her detention has been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares this claim admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the communication in light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that between 20 and 22 April 2002, she was incarcerated in the temporary detention facility of the Leninsky District Police Department in a basement cell, which was cold and had very poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, such as rats and spiders in the cell; no ventilation, the air in the cell being stale; poor lighting which was always on and disturbed the author’s sleep; lack of a mattress, pillow or blanket; a hole in the floor instead of a toilet, which was not separated from the rest of the cell, and a cold water tap above it without a sink. The Committee also notes that between 22 and 30 April 2002, the author was incarcerated in the Investigative Detention Centre No.7 where conditions of detention were similar to the above. Moreover, on three occasions, each lasting two hours, for demanding to see a Polish consular official she was placed in a 0.7 by 0.7 meters sized box, which was extremely cold and too small to even sit. The author claims that the conditions of detention caused her physical and mental suffering. Specifically, on 22 April 2002, she fell ill, guards had to call for an ambulance and she was then diagnosed to suffer from high blood pressure and haemorrhage in her brain, which she attributes to the conditions of her detention. 6.3 The Committee notes that these allegations are consistent with the findings of the Committee against Torture in its concluding observations with regard to the State party, adopted in November 2011, in which it stated that it remained deeply concerned about continuing reports of poor conditions in places of deprivation of liberty, including with respect to the problems of overcrowding, poor diet, lack of access to facilities for basic hygiene, and inadequate medical care.4 The Committee recalls that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; they must be treated humanely in accordance with the Standard 3 4 4 Mika Miha v. Equatorial Guinea (CCPR/C/51/D/414/1990), para. 5.1. CAT/C/BLR/CO/4, para. 19.