CAT/C/59/D/549/2013 proceedings against the complainant, in the course of which he was released on bail, the State party was in breach of its obligations under article 15 of the Convention. 7.8 With regard to the claim under article 16, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s allegations that during his detention at the headquarters of the criminal investigation police he was held with 10 other detainees in a cell measuring 12 square metres, without windows or light and without water, food or medical treatment for the first 17 days. He was forced to drink water from the toilet in order to survive; he had to sleep on the floor in appalling sanitary conditions and had no access to a doctor until 12 June 2007, despite asking for one and despite his worrying state of health. He further claims that on 3 July 2006 he was transferred to Mpimba prison, which was extremely unhygienic and overcrowded at all times. The complainant also highlighted the manifest absence of any mechanism for monitoring the cells at the National Intelligence Service detention centre, the central prison in Gitega and Mpimba prison, where the complainant was detained, which undoubtedly increased the risk of his being subjected to acts of torture. In the absence of any pertinent information from the State party in this respect, the Committee concludes that the facts disclose a violation by the State party of its obligations under article 16, read in conjunction with article 11 of the Convention.13 8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1, and of articles 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, read in conjunction with article 11 of the Convention. 9. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to launch an impartial investigation into the incidents in question, with a view to bringing those responsible for the victim’s treatment to justice, and to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmittal of this decision, of the measures it has taken in response to the above views, including adequate and fair compensation that provides the means necessary for his fullest possible rehabilitation. 13 10 See Ntikarahera v. Burundi, para. 6.6. GE.17-01070