CAT/C/52/D/478/2011 recognized the competence of the Committee to receive and consider complaints from individuals who claim to be victims of violations of one or other of the provisions of the Convention. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 22 of the Convention from examining the question of whether or not the complainant is a victim of violations of the Convention on the merits. 10.4 The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible on the grounds that it was submitted in abuse of the right of submission, because the complainant appeared to be seeking a review of his verdict and sentence. The Committee observes that, under article 15 of the Convention, the State party has accepted the obligation of ensuring that any statement that is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, and therefore the submission by the complainant relates to the merits of his allegations under article 15 of the Convention. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded, by the requirements of article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, from examining the present communication. 10.5 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s allegation that the State party violated its obligations under article 4 of the Convention. However, the Committee is of the opinion that the author has failed to substantiate such a claim for the purposes of admissibility. 10.6 The Committee further takes note of the complainant’s allegations that he was not provided with a lawyer at the time of his arrest, initial detention and initial interrogation, that immediately after his arrest and while in the temporary confinement ward he was subjected to beatings, and that he was denied medical assistance. The Committee observes, however, that the above-mentioned allegations do not appear to have been raised before the domestic authorities, and therefore declares them inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 10.7 The Committee considers that the complainant’s remaining allegations raise issues under articles 1, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Convention, and accordingly declares them admissible and proceeds to their examination on the merits. The Committee also notes that the facts in the communication could raise issues under article 16 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 11.2 The Committee notes the claim that the complainant was subjected to torture, as defined by article 1 of the Convention. It notes that some of the facts relating to the complainant’s prolonged detention in the temporary confinement ward are not disputed by the State party, namely that the complainant was held in the temporary confinement ward from 14 December 2000 to 2 April 2001 and again from 25 June 2001 to 24 July 2001, that he was not provided with bedding or toiletry items, that there was no table, toilet or sink in the cell, that showers were seldom allowed and then only with cold water, and that no walks outside the cell were allowed. The Committee also notes that the State party has disputed other allegations made by the complainant, namely that there were insects in the cell, that the light was always on, that there was no ventilation and that he was only fed once a day. The Committee observes that the conditions in which the complainant was detained for a prolonged period of time do not appear to have caused “severe pain and suffering” within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. However, the Committee considers that, even without taking the disputed facts into consideration, the 8