135. With respect to the allegation that the Applicant was left to sleep on the floor without a blanket and restricted from accessing friends and relatives, the Court considers that detention conditions necessarily involve some restrictions of movement, communication and comfort. Furthermore, the Applicant does not adduce any prima facie evidence to support his allegation. This allegation is therefore dismissed. 136. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment protected under Article 5 of the Charter with respect to deprivation of food. C. Alleged violation of the right to property 137. The Applicant alleges that after his arrest, the Respondent State failed to secure his properties left in his house in Arusha and as a result. agents of the Respondent State arbitrarily disposed of the said properties. Upon request by this Court, the Applicant provided an itemised list of all the property with the values. To prove the Respondent State's responsibility in securing his properties, the Applicant alleges that, after his arrest, his son was taken away and the house maid was asked to leave the house. The house was then placed under the custody of the police officers and officers of the ICTR Security Department. 138. The Applicant also avers that ICTR officers came to him at Karanga Prison in Moshi with documents, including two court orders from Cote d'ivoire, which they requested him to sign in order to dispose of the properties. He requested for the presence of a lawyer before signing and demanded a copy thereof, which the ICTR officers never provided him. 139. In its Response, the Respondent State claims that the Applicant did not specify the property in question and did not substantiate the claim. It avers that during the trial, the Applicant mentioned that he did not know the whereabouts of his property but did not elaborate as to what property specifically he referred to. 34