CCPR/C/105/D/1303/2004 confinement and incommunicado for nine days, the Committee notes that no information has been provided on the arrest and whether he was presented before a judicial authority. On the other hand, the author states that on 31 October 1997, she visited her husband at Lusaka police headquarters.11 The Committee therefore concludes that the author has not sufficiently substantiated her claims under articles 9 and 16. With regard to the author’s allegation that Mr. Chiti’s trial suffered undue delay, the Committee notes that the information provided is very general and does not contain indications as to the circumstances under which the trial took place. Accordingly, the Committee considers this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. While the author has not specifically invoked article 6 of the Covenant, her allegations in relation to the direct link between her husband’s treatment in detention and his subsequent death seem to raise issues under article 6 of the Covenant. 11.7 With regard to the author’s allegations under articles 2, paragraph 3; 7; 12, paragraph 1; 17, paragraphs 1 and 2; 23, paragraph 1; 24, paragraph 1; and 26, they seem to relate to the author and her family. The Committee notes that the author has not provided the complete identity and age of her children and no power of attorney has been provided in the event that her children were above 18 years of age at the time of the submission of the author’s communication. The Committee will therefore not separately examine the author’s claims as related to her children, in particular in relation to article 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. With regard to article 12, paragraph 1, since the author has on several occasions left the country and come back, the Committee finds the author’s allegations under article 12, paragraph 1, as insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. As for article 26, the author has not provided any information on alleged discrimination by the State party. This part of the communication is therefore also inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. On the other hand, the Committee considers that the author’s claims under articles 2, paragraph 3; 7; 17; and 23, paragraph 1, in relation to the disruption of her family life and the anguish and lack of remedy for the torture, detention and subsequent death of her husband have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. 11.8 The Committee therefore considers the communication admissible in relation to articles 2, paragraph 3; 6; 7; 10; and 14, paragraph 3 g) of the Covenant with regard to Jack Chiti; and in relation to articles 2, paragraph 3; 7; 17; and 23, paragraph 1 of the Covenant with regard to the author and her family; and proceeds to the examination of those claims on the merits. Consideration of the merits 12.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the written information made available to it by the parties, as provided for in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 12.2 The Committee notes the author’s allegation that her husband, Jack Chiti, was tortured at the Lusaka police headquarters for nine days, following his arrest on 28 October 1997; that as a consequence of the torture inflicted, he was transferred to Maina Soko Military hospital where he was diagnosed with an eardrum perforation. The Committee further notes the author’s claim that, while imprisoned, her husband was diagnosed with prostate cancer but could not afford the prescribed drugs; that the prison in which he was serving his sentence failed to provide him with these drugs; nor was he provided with the high-protein diet recommended for the purposes of slowing down the spread of cancer. The Committee also notes that Mr. Chiti was HIV-positive and that he was allegedly detained in inhuman conditions, denied adequate food and a clean environment. The Committee notes 11 8 See para. 2.4 above.