CAT/C/59/D/686/2015 vague and conflicting arguments could not validly form the basis for an admissible claim. 40 Regarding the solitary confinement decision of 4 August 2011, the State party indicates that the complainant challenged the decision on 5 August 2011, requesting its annulment because it was imposed during Ramadan and because the prison officer had made disproportionate use of force against him. On 29 February 2012, the justice division rejected the appeal, referring to its previous decision of 26 July 2011, in which it denied any access to the documents requested by the complainant in order to avoid conflicts within the prison. The justice division also considered that the complainant’s right to be heard had not been violated. 6.4 The State party reports that the complainant did not appeal that decision. With respect to the solitary confinement decisions dated 21 and 29 July 2014, it submits that the complainant sent two letters to the justice division requesting access to the documents related to the matter, without specifically indicating that he was appealing the decisions. On 2 September 2014, the justice division replied stating that it had contacted the prison’s management directly and that, given that the complainant had been heard and informed of the accusations made against him on the dates when the disciplinary sanctions were adopted, the complainant’s procedural rights had been fully respected and the complainant could appeal the above-mentioned decisions. However, he did not do so on time, as the deadline had already expired.41 6.5 The State party further submits that, according to article 31 of the Ticino Rules on the Execution of Criminal Penalties, detainees are informed of their rights, including of the possibility of having a lawyer. It submits that, although article 31 is general in nature, it establishes that the right to contact a lawyer is not restricted when the detainee is in solitary confinement. It also indicates that before solitary confinement decisions are imposed, detainees are heard by prison authorities and a report of the hearing is established. Detainees are not legally represented by a lawyer during such hearings; however, they can request that their lawyer be present. 42 The State party indicates that the complainant has not requested to be represented by a lawyer during the disciplinary hearings or to submit an appeal against the decisions imposing solitary confinement, 43 even though he is fluent in Italian and is fully aware of the possibility of contacting a lawyer. Additional submissions by the complainant 7.1 On 4, 18 and 19 January 2014, the complainant reiterated his claims to the Committee. 7.2 On 16 February 2016, the Committee received a submission from the complainant indicating that on 27 January 2016, after the complainant had declared that he would start a hunger strike, 15 prison guards tortured him. The complainant claims that he was taken 40 41 42 43 According to the Law on the Federal Tribunal (LTF: RS 173.110) appeals addressed to that Tribunal should explain, even if succinctly, the alleged act that violates the applicant’s rights. If this requirement is not fulfilled, the appeal is inadmissible. A copy has been provided, in Italian only. The State party refers to a 2014 report by the Swiss Centre of Expertise in Human Rights, according to which it would be desirable for detainees to be systematically legally represented when they are the object of a disciplinary decision imposing solitary confinement, including the possibility of requesting legal aid. Available, in French only, at www.skmr.ch/frz/domaines/police/publications/detentionprotection-juridique.html. The State party refers to the reports by the prison’s authorities regarding the decisions imposing solitary confinement. In those reports it is indicated that the complainant was asked whether he understood Italian and whether he needed an interpreter, and that he was then heard in relation to the events causing the disciplinary sanction. He was reminded of his right to remain silent. Copies of the reports have been provided by the State party, in Italian only. 13