CCPR/C/115/D/2214/2012 party has violated the author ’s rights under articles 7 and 9, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 6.5 The Committee notes as well the author ’s allegations under article 10, paragraph 1, to the effect that he was held in an ANR detention centre in deplorable conditions, spending seven days in different cells, with the one on the first day measuring 12 square metres, the next one measuring 3 square metres and then two others that were even smaller; and that all the cells were permeated by a nauseating stench. The Committee notes that the author had no access to food or water during the first two days of his detention; that he had a shared bucket to use as his only toilet; that he had no access to daylight; and that he had no access to medical care except on the last day of his detention, despite the acts of torture to which he had been subjected. It also notes the alleged failure of the State party to separate male and female prisoners and to protect their privacy and dignity. In view of the gravity of the allegations concerning the deplorable conditions of detention described by the author in his communication, and in the absence of any information from the State party to refute them, the Committee concludes that there was a separate violation of article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 6.6 Having reached the above conclusions, the Committee will not examine the claims of a violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 6.7 The Committee notes that the author ’s arrest at his home took place without a warrant and was accompanied by acts of violence in the presence of one of his daughters; that, after the author had escaped from the State party’s territory, his home remained under close surveillance and his wife was subjected to act s of intimidation; that, on various occasions, ANR agents went to the home to try to find out from her the whereabouts of her husband; and that these facts were reported to the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Th e Committee also notes that the author was forced to flee and to seek refugee status for him and his family in the United Kingdom, resulting in a three -year separation of the family after the author ’s departure from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the absence of observations from the State party and taking into consideration all circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that these facts constitute arbitrary and unlawful interference with the author ’s privacy, home and family. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party violated the author ’s rights under article 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 23, of the Covenant. 7. The Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation of articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3; article 10, paragraph 1; and article 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 23, of the Covenant. 8. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. The State party is therefore required to provide full reparation to individuals whose Covenant right s have been violated. In the present case, the State party is under an obligation to, inter alia, carry out an effective and complete investigation of the facts, prosecute and punish the perpetrators, and provide full reparation and appropriate measures of satisfaction. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations 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 d etermine whether or not 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 GE.15-22873 11/17