CCPR/C/119/D/2146/2012 8.4 Secondly, as admitted by the State party, a number of the author’s complaints were brought before the court for it to consider the allegations, for example the author’s complaints dated 25 September 2009 and 21 October 2009. The Committee recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State must investigate it promptly and impartially. Instead of conducting a prompt and impartial investigation into the author’s claims of torture, however, the court simply questioned one of the investigators, who denied any wrongdoing in relation to the author. The Committee notes that the material on file does not allow it to conclude that any prompt or impartial investigation was carried out into the allegations of torture, despite a number of verifiable complaints from the author himself and from his aunt. In the absence of any other pertinent information, and in the circumstances of the present case, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3). 8.5 Lastly, the Committee must decide whether the author’s treatment and the alleged lack of adequate medical assistance in detention amounted to a violation of his rights under article 10 (1). The author also complained that the court building, detention centres and prisons were not accessible to persons with disabilities and that he was refused medical treatment on numerous occasions. 8.6 The State party contested these allegations by stating that the author had received medical care when he requested it and that the detention centres and prisons were provided with the necessary personnel, equipment and facilities to treat a person with disabilities. The records show that the author requires special medical attention, given his status as a person with disabilities. Additionally, the author required assistance with access to toilets and showers and treatment for his long-standing medical issues, such as constant bedsores. 8.7 In that connection, the Committee notes that the State party is under an obligation to observe certain minimum standards of detention, which include the provision of medical care and treatment for sick prisoners, in accordance with rule 24 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). It is apparent from the author’s account that the pretrial detention facilities, prisons and medical facilities where the author was held after the trial were not suitable for a person with disabilities who is able to move only in a wheelchair. The Committee further notes the author’s claims that he was left alone in his cell without any meaningful activities, which caused numerous bedsores on his body. The author could not move independently and was not provided with continuous assistance even for his most basic needs. The Committee further notes that, despite several examinations by the penitentiary medical specialists, he was not able to receive medical treatment adequate to his condition and that he continued suffering from the lack of specialized medical care and medicine that he needed. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee finds that confining the author in such conditions constitutes a violation of his right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person under article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 33 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 10. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to take appropriate steps: (a) to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into the authors’ allegations of torture and ill-treatment; (b) to provide the author with adequate compensation; (c) to provide the author with appropriate medical care and assistance considering his disability and medical condition, including permitting access to private doctors and nurses to examine and assist the author. The State party is also under 33 12 See, for instance, communications No. 695/1993, Simpson v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 31 October 2001, para. 7.2; No. 590/1994, Bennet v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 25 March 1999, paras. 10.7-10.8; No. 704/1996, Shaw v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 2 April 1998, para. 7.1; and No. 734/1997, McLeod v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 31 March 1998, para. 6.4.