CAT/C/52/D/497/2012 unrecorded apprehension and detention, in the absence of a defence lawyer, to force him to confess guilt in a robbery. In addition, the complainant has provided the names of the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him to the point he confessed guilt. The Committee considers that this treatment in question can be regarded as amounting to torture, which is inflicted deliberately by officials with a view to obtain forced confessions. The Committee also notes that the State party merely denies that the complainant was ill-treated at all, without however, providing sufficient explanations as to how adequately, in practice, had the authorities addressed the complainant’s and his mother’s claims regarding the illtreatment/torture suffered. 8.3 Although the complainant has not submitted any medical report documenting the injuries he sustained as a result of ill-treatment by the police officers of the CDIA, the Committee notes that he made consistent statements about his ill-treatment before the national authorities, including during the criminal proceedings, in court, up to the highest jurisdiction. The Committee further notes the complainant’s statement that he was not provided with any medical assistance upon his placement in the temporary detention facility and that when he arrived at the Colony No. 161/1 on 1 August 2008, the medical personnel there refused to admit it or to document his bruises in his medical records. The Committee notes that the State party has not specifically refuted these allegations. In these circumstances, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations, in particular, given that only the penitentiary medical personnel were available to him and he could not approach an independent medical expert, who could record/document his injuries. Moreover, the Committee notes the complainant’s unrefuted allegations to the effect that he was neither questioned, nor did he undergo a medicalforensic examination when the State authorities received his or his mother’s initial complaints about the ill-treatment suffered. As to the State party’s submission that, on 14 May 2010, the complainant signed a statement revoking his complaints against the CDIA police officers, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s explanation that he signed the mentioned statement as he was threatened and put under pressure to do so by the penitentiary administration in order not to face adverse consequences. 8.4 Taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Committee notes that it is uncontested that the complainant was in police detention at the time he claims he was subjected to torture and sustained serious injuries. The State party has also not refuted the complainant’s allegation to the effect that his apprehension and subsequent police detention remained undocumented for at least two days, and that he was not represented by a lawyer during this period of time. Nor has it contested the fact that the complainant’s mother had requested, on two occasions, the administration of the IVS to provide her with a medical report about the complainant’s medical condition at the time of his admission to the IVS; however, the Head of the IVS issued her only a brief reply stating that the complainant had no claims and that no bodily injuries were disclosed upon admission.10 In addition, it remains uncontested that the complainant and his mother complained, both, throughout the pre-trial investigation and in court, about the complainant’s ill-treatment by the police officers of the CDIA. In this context, the Committee notes that the State party has not provided comprehensive explanations concerning the concrete manner in which the claims in question were addressed by its competent authorities. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the State party has not provided the complainant’s medical records attesting the complainant’s state of health upon his admission to IVS and corroborating the State party’s statement that no injuries had been established on him. Under these circumstances, and in light of the detailed account which the complainant has given of the ill-treatment to which he was subjected to force him confess guilt, and given that no objective evidence in the 10 See para. 2.10 above. 11