CAT/C/60/D/573/2013 8.3 The Committee also recalls that for a claim to be admissible under article 22 of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, it must rise to the basic level of substantiation required for the purposes of admissibility. 10 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is manifestly unfounded owing to a lack of substantiation. The Committee considers that the arguments put forward by the complainants raise substantive issues under articles 1, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention, and that those arguments should be dealt with on their merits. 8.4 However, while the complainants have submitted that the State party has violated its obligations under article 11 of the Convention, they have provided no information to support this claim. The Committee therefore considers that this claim has been insufficiently substantiated and is inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention and under rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure. 8.5 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible with regard to the claims under articles 1, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 9.2 The Committee notes the complainants’ claims that they were subjected to torture, as defined in article 1 (1), and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as defined in article 16 (1), of the Convention. The Committee notes that both complainants allege that they were interrogated for about eight hours by officers of the police and the prosecutor’s office in the police station after having been apprehended and that during that time they were kept handcuffed, beaten, kicked, throttled, and threatened with being thrown out of the window. The Committee also notes that the first complainant alleges that the act of witnessing the second complainant, his son, being subjected to that treatment by the authorities in order to compel the complainants to confess to a crime itself amounted to torture under article 1 of the Convention. 9.3 The Committee observes that the medic on duty at the temporary detention facility recorded abrasions and bruises on one complainant on 10 October 2010, and on the other complainant on 11 October 2010, and that the injuries recorded were consistent with the complainants’ accounts. While the State party notes that the reports of the subsequent medical examinations that the complainants received upon arrival in Tbilisi prison No. 8 on 13 October 2010 do not note any such injuries, and the forensic medical examinations ordered by investigators, which analysed the various medical reports, concluded that the injuries incurred by the complainants were not serious, in the view of the Committee the documentation from the temporary detention facility is sufficient evidence to corroborate the complainants’ accounts. The Committee finds, on the basis of the evidence provided, that the complainants’ accounts are credible. Those accounts, moreover, allege conduct by the State party’s authorities which amounts to “severe pain and suffering”, within the meaning of article 1 (1) of the Convention. 9.4 The Committee also notes the allegation that the second complainant, who is suffering from diabetes, was not allowed to have insulin injections for the entire period of detention in the police station and in the temporary detention facility, from 10 to 13 October 2010, which resulted in aggravation of his condition. The State party has not contested those claims. The Committee therefore finds that the above-mentioned treatment constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 16 of the Convention, and that the State party violated article 16 (1) of the Convention with regard to the second complainant. 9.5 As to the complainants’ claim that the State party’s officials violated article 12 of the Convention by failing to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation, the Committee 10 GE.17-09205 See, among others, communication No. 308/2006, K.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 16 November 2007, para. 7.2. 9