CCPR/C/ 91/D/1186/2003 Page 7 Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the written information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The author contends that her husband’s death in custody amounts to a violation of article 6 which requires a State party to protect the right to life of all persons within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction. In the present case, the author claims that the State party failed to protect the right to life of her husband by a) failing to allow a nurse access to his cell when he was clearly severely ill, and b) condoning life threatening conditions of detention at Bafoussam prison, especially the apparently unchecked propagation of life-threatening diseases. The State party has not refuted these allegations. In these circumstances, the Committee finds that the State party did not fulfill its obligation under article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, to protect Mr. Titiahonjo’s right to life. 6.3 The author claims that her husband’s rights were violated under article 7 of the Covenant, because of a) the general conditions of detention, b) the beatings he was subjected to, c) the deprivation of both food and clothing in detention at the Gendarmerie cell and at Bafoussam prison, and d) the death threats he received and the incommunicado detention he suffered in both the Gendarmerie cell and at Bafoussam prison. The State party has not contested these allegations, and the author has provided a detailed account of the treatment and beatings her husband was subjected to. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that Mr. Titiahonjo was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 6.4 The author also claims violation of article 7 on her own behalf. She was in an advanced state of pregnancy and she alleges that she suffered from the treatment she and her husband were subjected to. She was mistreated by the police and pushed into the gutter and slapped when they arrested Mr. Titiahonjo on the 19 may 2000.She was not allowed to visit her husband and was “chased” away when she visited the police station to give him food. The Committee finds that in the absence of any challenge to her claim by the State Party, due weight must be given to the author’s allegation. The Committee furthermore understands the anguish caused to the author by the uncertainty concerning her husband’s fate and continued imprisonment. The Committee concludes that under the circumstances she too is a victim of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 6.5 With regard to the claim under article 9, paragraph 1, it transpires from the file that no warrant was ever issued for Mr. Titiahonjo’s arrest or detention. On 25 June 2000, Captain Togolo informed the author that her husband was kept in prison purely because he was a member of the SCNC. There is no indication that he was charged with a criminal offense at any time. In the absence of any relevant State party information, the Committee considers that Mr. Titiahonjo’s deprivation of liberty was arbitrary and in violation of article 9, paragraph 1. 6.6 The author claims violations of article 9, paragraphs 2,3 and 4. Nothing suggest that Mr. Titiahonjo was ever informed of the reasons for his arrest, that he was ever brought before a judge or judicial officer, or that he ever was afforded the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his arrest or detention. Again, in the absence of relevant State party information on these