Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2711/2015 Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.5 The Committee notes that the State party has not contested the information provided by the author on her conditions of detention, nor has it provided any information in this respect. In these circumstances, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations to the extent that they are substantiated. The Committee considers, as it has repeatedly found in respect of similar substantiated claims, 6 that the author’s conditions of detention as described violated her right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and are therefore also contrary to article 10 (1), a provision of the Covenant dealing specifically with the situation of persons deprived of their liberty and encompassing for such persons the elements set out generally in article 7. For these reasons, the Committee finds that the circumstances of the author’s detention, as described by the author, constitute a violation of articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. 7. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. 8. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. The Committee considers that, in the present case, its Views on the merits of the complaint constitute sufficient reparation for the violation found. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 9. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party. 5 6 Aminov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/117/D/2220/2012), para. 9.3. Bobrov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/122/D/2181/2012), para. 8.2; Weerawansa v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/95/D/1406/2005), para. 7.4; and Evans v. Trinidad and Tobago (CCPR/C/77/D/908/2000), para. 6.4. 5