Vill. THE MERITS OF THE CASE A) The allegation that, on his arrest, the Applicant was detained at a police post which lacked basic facilities 95. In his Application, the Applicant first complained that, since his arrest on 10 April 1997 he was detained until 14 April 1997 at a police post that had no basic facilities to accommodate detainees. 96. In his Reply, the Applicant reiterated that the police detention venue was not up to standard, and that even today, the conditions in police posts are not conducive for human living. 97. In its Response, the Respondent State maintained that the allegation is unfounded; that detention facilities at police posts conform to the required regulatory standards; that the Applicant must provide concrete proof of his allegation; and that the arrest and detention of the Applicant has been done in accordance with the law. 98. At the Public Hearing, the Respondent State reiterated this position, explaining particular that all police stations infrastructure regulations particularly in terms have of the the number required of prisoners to comply in a cell, in with the latrines, toilets, cleanliness, and food for prisoners; the regulations prohibit the mistreatment of prisoners and allow them to complain to the person in charge of the police post who will then carry out investigation and take appropriate action; and, besides, that it is the first time the Applicant ever spoke of this complaint which he never raised either before the police post commandant or before the national courts 29 AV f-