CAT/C/52/D/497/2012 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee further notes that the State party does not dispute that domestic remedies have been exhausted6 and, thus, it is not precluded by the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, from examining the communication. 7.4 The Committee has noted the complainant’s claims under article 16 of the Convention concerning the allegedly inadequate health care provided to him, and of the poor conditions of detention while he was in the prison colony. It observes, however, that, in support of his allegations, the complainant submits no medical documentation or other evidence concerning the medical treatment he was provided with while in detention, regarding the deterioration of his state of health or about his eventual complaints regarding the allegedly inadequate health care provided. Consequently, and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, and declares it inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2 of the Convention.7 7.5 Further, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations under articles 1; 2; 12; 13; 14 and 15 of the Convention. It notes that the State party challenges their admissibility, as manifestly unfounded. In light of the material before it, however, the Committee considers that the arguments put forward by the complainant raise substantive issues, which should be dealt with on the merits.8 Accordingly, the Committee finds no further obstacles to the admissibility. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee notes that the complainant has alleged a violation of article 1 in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, on the grounds that the State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish acts of torture. These provisions are applicable insofar as the acts to which the complainant was allegedly subjected should be considered as acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.9 In this respect, the Committee notes the complainant’s detailed description of the treatment he was allegedly subjected to by the police officers of the CDIA in July 2008 immediately after his 6 7 8 9 10 See, e.g., communication No. 225/2003 (CAT/C/32/D/225/2003), R.S. v. Denmark, decision of 19 May 2004, para. 6.1. See, e.g., communication No.434/2010 (CAT/C/51/D/434/2010), Y.G.H. et al v. Australia, decision of 14 November 2013, para. 7.4. For a similar approach, see, e.g., communication No. 435/2010 (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), G.B.M. v. Sweden, decision of 14 November 2012, para. 6.3. See communication No. 269/2005 (CAT/C/39/D/269/2005), Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, decision of 7 November 2007, para. 16.4.