CCPR/C/116/D/2231/2012 as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant. 17 The Committee notes that the material on file does not allow it to conclude that the investigation into the allegations of torture was carried out promptly or effectively or that any suspects were identified, despite a number of incriminatory witness accounts.18 In the present case, the inquiry that was conducted in 2013, while extensive, lacked the element of impartiality,19 as although investigators interviewed more than 100 law enforcement officers, judge, court clerks and prosecutors, they failed to interview the author’s lawyers, human rights defenders who visited the author in detention and his relatives. The Committee notes the State party’s submission that it interviewed the author. However, it did not refer to the results of the interviews, nor did it provide a copy of the record. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3). 8.4 The Committee further notes the author’s claims under article 9 (1) that he was arbitrarily detained from 15 to 16 June 2010. The author also claims that this was done to enable the police officers to torture him. The State party contends that the author was first questioned only as a witness and formally arrested on 16 June. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person according to which arrest within the meaning of article 9 need not involve a formal arrest as defined under domestic law. Beyond the requirements of the Covenant that no one shall be deprived of liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law, the State party categorically denies that it held the author during the night in question, despite numerous witness accounts to the contrary and the fact that his family members were unable to locate him. In the absence of any pertinent explanation from the State party regarding the author’s whereabouts, the conditions of his detention and the record of arrest, the Committee considers that the author’s rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant were violated. 8.5 The Committee further takes note of the author’s contention that the conditions of his detention, particularly at the Bazar-Korgon police station, were inhuman, in violation of article 10 of the Covenant. The author also complains of the conditions of detention following his conviction, including the lack of adequate access to medical care. The Committee notes that the State party is under an obligation to observe certain minimum standards of detention, which include provision of medical care and treatment for sick prisoners, in accordance with rule 24 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). It is clear from the author’s account, and from the multiple submissions by independent experts on file, that he was not able to receive proper medical treatment for the serious conditions from which he was suffering. In view of the fact the State party itself acknowledged the overcrowding, and taking into account the author’s detailed description of his health condition and lack of access to adequate medical care, the Committee concludes that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 8.6 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that his trial was characterized by a number of irregularities, such as disorder and violence caused by members of the public attending the trial. The author further claims that he was not able to call witnesses on his behalf, was not able to cross-examine prosecution witnesses on the first day of trial when 17 18 19 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment, para. 14; and its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligations imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 18. The Committee also notes that to explain the author’s allegations of ill-treatment, the State party refers to three psychiatrists’ conclusion that the author was “a liar; an obsequious person”. See paragraph 5.14. 15