CCPR/C/117/D/2227/2012 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 the purposes of admissibility, declares them admissible and proceeds to an examination of the merits. Consideration of 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 for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he was ill-treated while detained in in LBK-12 prison, where he was singled out for harsh treatment for being a Jehovah’s Witness. The Committee notes the author’s claim that he was put in quarantine for 10 days upon his arrival and that he was beaten three times by other detainees under the order of the prison’s guards. The Committee also takes note of the author’s claim that he was falsely accused of breaking the prison rules and that, as a consequence, he was put in a concrete punishment cell three times, for as long as one month the third time. The Committee also notes that during those periods the author was beaten by officers of the Special Police Forces, who tried to force him to renounce to his faith. The Committee further notes the author’s allegation regarding the lack of adequate mechanisms for investigation of torture and ill-treatment in the State party and recalls that complaints of illtreatment must be investigated promptly and impartially by the competent authorities.9 The Committee notes that the State party has not refuted the allegations of torture and illtreatment, nor provided any information in that respect. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that 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 notes the author’s claims concerning the deplorable prison conditions at LBK-12 prison, including the placement upon arrival in quarantine for 10 days, the harsh climatic conditions that the author was exposed to during an extremely hot summer and an extremely cold winter, and the poor hygiene conditions of the punishment cell where the author was sent on three occasions, as there was no toilet, only an open plastic bucket, and nowhere to wash his hands. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that LBK-12 prison is overcrowded and that prisoners with tuberculosis and skin diseases are kept together with healthy inmates, putting him at a high risk of contracting tuberculosis. The Committee further notes the author’s claims that he was always monitored when in LBK-12 prison and that he was not allowed to associate freely with other Jehovah’s Witnesses who were in the same prison. The Committee notes that the allegations were not contested by the State party and that they are consistent with the findings of the Committee against Torture in its most recent concluding observations with regard to the State party (see CAT/C/TKM/CO/1, para. 19). 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, and that they must be treated in accordance with, inter alia, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.10 In the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the 9 10 6 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment. See, e.g., communications No. 1520/2006, Mwamba v. Zambia, Views adopted on 10 March 2010, para. 6.4 ; and No. 2218/2012, Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2015, para. 7.3.