CCPR/C/118/D/2152/2012 He challenges the State party’s submission regarding his psychological characteristics and maintains that if he was that unstable he would not have been allowed to work in a detention centre, since potential employees go through extensive medical screening. He maintains that the information above was presented by the State party in order to exonerate the employees of the penitentiary. He refers to the conclusion of his forensic psychiatric examination, dated 19 January 2007, which found that he was not suffering from any chronic psychiatric conditions or other psychiatric troubles. 7.3 The author maintains that he was not taken out of his cell every day, as submitted by the State party and that the quoted records are not genuine. He submits that in the period when he was detained in the detention centre it was overcrowded, that it was logistically complicated to take all detainees for a walk for the required hour and that the guards predominantly took out inmates from cells with multiple occupancy, because they feared riots if they failed to do so. He also submits that many of his oral complaints, such as those regarding the condition of his mattress were never recorded by the administration. He reiterates that on the days when he was taken to court, he never received any dry rations and often did not get dinner either. He also repeats the information regarding the number of detainees in the cells where he was detained and regarding his application to the European Court of Human Rights. The author confirms that he only made oral complaints regarding the harassment he suffered from cellmates, but alleges that it was instigated by personnel of the detention centre and therefore the complaints remained unrecorded and unaddressed. State party’s additional observations 8.1 On 13 November and 19 December 2013, the State party submitted that upon his arrival at the detention centre at 6 p.m. on 1 September 2006 the author was placed in common cell No. 8 until 8.30 the next morning and was then transferred to cell No. 66. In accordance with domestic regulations, he was subjected to a full search twice. The author’s allegations that he had been held in a rubber cell could not be confirmed. He was placed in single punishment cell No. 3 from 4 to 6 September 2006 in order to guarantee his safety. The State party reiterates its submission with regard to the loudspeaker in the corridor of the detention centre. It also reiterates the information regarding the author’s medical records and maintains that the acute respiratory infection he had on 20 September 2006 could not have been caused by a stay in a rubber cell on 1 and 2 September. 8.2 The State party confirms that one of the author’s cellmates was being monitored by a psychiatrist, but maintains that his illness was in remission at the time, he did not have to be isolated and did not present a danger to the other inmates. One other cellmate, who was placed in the cell between 22 May and 7 July 2007, also had a psychiatric condition and was inclined towards self-harm (name on file). No unlawful acts by that individual towards the author have been established. The remaining cellmates of the author were placed together with him in order to protect them from the general population and all but the two individuals undergoing psychiatric treatment were former officers. 8.3 The State party reiterates the evaluation of the author’s personality (see paragraph 6.3 above) and submits that the evaluation was prepared by the Penitentiary Department and sent to the Prosecutor’s Office. The State party maintains that the author was being monitored based on a psychological report revealing that he had psychiatric deviations. The State party reiterates its submission regarding walks, hygiene, food rations and the availability of an individual bed and bed linen in the detention centre (see paragraph 6.4). The State party also reiterates its submission regarding the domestic judicial proceedings (see paragraphs 4.2 and 6.8). 8