CCPR/C/122/D/2181/2012 Committee therefore decides to examine the author’s claim of violation under article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant in conjunction with article 7. 7.5 The Committee considers that the communication is admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) (a) and 14 (1) of the Covenant. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication admissible and proceeds with its examination of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he was incarcerated in a number of overcrowded but small cells with no beds, chairs or heating, under extremely poor sanitary and hygiene conditions. For the full duration of his detention, he was obliged to sleep on a wooden board that was used by approximately 10 people at the same time, and he was not allowed to leave his cell. The temperature inside ranged between 10 °C and 14 °C, which resulted in him being cold and having difficulty sleeping. The author also claims that the toilet was not separated from the common area of the cell and he had to use it in full view of the other detainees. During his detention, the author was deprived of daily walks and was always kept in his cell. The author claims that the conditions of his detention caused him physical and mental suffering. The Committee notes that these allegations are consistent with the findings of the Committee against Torture in its concluding observations with regard to the State party, adopted in November 2011, in which it stated that it remained deeply concerned about continuing reports of poor conditions in places of deprivation of liberty, including with respect to the problems of overcrowding, poor diet, lack of access to facilities for basic hygiene, and inadequate medical care. 9 The Committee recalls that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; they must be treated humanely in accordance with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. 10 The Committee notes that the State party has not contested the information provided by the author on his conditions of detention, nor has it provided any information in this respect. In these circumstances, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations to the extent that they are substantiated. The Committee considers, as it has repeatedly found in respect of similar substantiated claims,11 that the author’s conditions of detention as described violated his right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and are therefore also contrary to article 10 (1), a provision of the Covenant dealing specifically with the situation of persons deprived of their liberty and encompassing for such persons the elements set out generally in article 7. For these reasons, the Committee finds that the circumstances of the author’s detention, as described by the author, constitute a violation of articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. 8.3 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that when he initiated civil proceedings at Moskovsky District Court in Minsk City against the illegal inaction of the administration of the detention facility, claiming that the conditions of his detention had violated his rights under article 7 of the Covenant, the court refused to initiate proceedings owing to lack of jurisdiction, indicating that national legislation provided for an out-ofcourt procedure for the consideration of complaints regarding conditions of detention, namely through a complaint to the head of the detention facility in which the author had served his administrative sentence. 8.4 The Committee reiterates the importance that it attaches to States parties’ establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations under domestic law. It refers to paragraph 15 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it states that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of 9 10 11 See CAT/C/BLR/CO/4, para. 19. See Aminov v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/117/D/2220/2012), para. 9.3. See Weerawansa v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/95/D/1406/2005), para. 7.4; and Evans v. Trinidad and Tobago (CCPR/C/77/D/908/2000), para. 6.4. 5