Condensed: Inhumane conditions of detention are conditions which violate the inherent dignity of the detained person. A detained person should only be subjected to restrictions that are unavoidable due to the deprivation of liberty, with full respect for their human dignity. In determining whether conditions of detention should be considered inhumane, the nature and context of the treatment, its duration and its physical or mental effects should be considered. Examples of what may constitute inhuman or degrading conditions of detention include: lack of adequate accommodation (including adequate space, access to adequate clothing and bedding, and means to provide for personal hygiene); lack of adequate food and water; lack of minimum privacy and security; denial of access to natural light and exercise opportunities outside cell; lack of access to adequate medical services and denial of opportunity to communicate with the outside world. Degrading treatment such as displaying a prisoner to the press in a cage or requiring a detainee to strip naked in front of prison guards when not necessary and justified by security reasons may also constitute inhumane conditions of detention. Comprehensive: Inhumane conditions of detention are conditions which violate the inherent dignity of the detained person. Article 10(1) of the ICCPR provides that ‘All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.’ This provision is linked to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in article 7 of the ICCPR.[1] (See *cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment*). According to the HRC, ‘[p]ersons deprived of their liberty enjoy all the rights set forth in the Covenant, subject to the restrictions that are unavoidable in a closed environment.’[2] This applies to all types of deprivation of liberty including *administrative detention* and *forced institutionalisation*.[3] In determining whether conditions of detention should be considered inhumane, ‘the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age, state of health or other status of the victim’ should be considered.[4] Severe inhumane conditions of detention could constitute torture if intentionally inflicted for certain purposes (see *torture*). If death results it could constitute a violation of the right to life.[5] (See *extrajudicial execution or other unlawful killing*). Relevant international human rights standards to determine what constitutes acceptable treatment are the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. There are also international standards dealing with specific categories of detainees such as children, women and asylum seekers[6] and regional standards.[7] These rules set out minimum standards that a state should not fall below. The HRC has with reference to the Standard Minimum Rules held that ‘certain minimum standards regarding the conditions of detention must be observed regardless of a State party’s level of development’ and that lack of resources is not a defence for non-compliance.[8] The Standard Minimum Rules and other relevant human rights standards include provisions on registration, separation of categories, accommodation, personal hygiene, clothing and bedding, food, exercise and sport, medical services, discipline and punishment, instruments of restraint, information to and complaints by prisoners, contact with the outside world, books, religion, retention of prisoners property, notification of death, illness, transfer etc, institutional personnel, inspection and rules applicable to specific categories of prisoners. Examples of situations that have been held by international human rights monitoring bodies to constitute inhumane conditions of detention, separately or in combination, include overcrowded cells and lack of mattresses;[9] dirty cells (vermin,[10] faeces[11]); inadequate ventilation;[12] lack of adequate light;[13] very little time spent outside cell (1 hour per week,[14] 20 minutes per day[15]); inadequate sanitation;[16] inedible or inadequate food;[17] lack of medical treatment;[18] lack of separation from detainees with communicable diseases;[19] restrictions on writing letters;[20] burning of personal belongings;[21] removal of clothes and blankets;[22] prohibition on children from visiting;[23] not being allowed to work[24] or undertake education;[25] and prolonged solitary confinement.[26] Degrading treatment such as displaying a prisoner to the press in a cage[27] or requiring a detainee to strip naked in front of prison guards when ‘not necessary and justified by security reasons’[28] may also constitute inhumane conditions of detention. The prohibition of inhuman or degrading conditions of detention is linked to the state’s obligation to ensure impartial supervision of all places of detention.[29] Detainees have the right to file complaints without suffering reprisals. All complaints shall be promptly dealt with.[30]
[1]The HRC generally distinguishes between general conditions of detention (article 10) and other types of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, such as physical attacks (article 7). The ACHR adds a provision similar to ICCPR article 10(1) after its prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (ACHR art 5(2). The ACHPR (art 5) and ECHR (art 3) only make reference to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. See also CAT arts 1, 2 and 16 and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance art 17.
[3] For the meaning of deprivation of liberty see *arbitrary arrest and detention*.
[4]Brough v Australia communication 1184/2003 (HRC 2006).
[5]Lantsova v Russian Federation communication 763/1997 (HRC 2002) para 9.2.
[6] UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty; UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules); UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders; UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers.
[7] European Prison Rules; Robben Island Guidelines on Torture (ACmHPR 2002), Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial (ACmHPR) s M7; and Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (ACmHR).
[9]Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago communication 938/2000 (UNHRC 2004), Lobban v Jamaica communication 797/1998 (UNHRC 2004), Griffin v Spain, Lantsova v Russian Federation; Cabal and Pasini Bertran v Australia communication 1020/2001 (UNHRC 2003). See also CAT, Concluding Observations: Colombia, CAT/C/CR/31/1 (CAT, 2004) para 9; CAT, Concluding Observations: Greece, A/56/44(SUPP) (CAT, 2001), para 87.
[10]Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago, Griffin v Spain.
[11]Howell v Jamaica communication 798/1998 (UNHRC 2003), Griffin v Spain.
[12]Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago. See also CAT, Concluding Observations: Moldova, CAT/C/MDA/CO/2 (CAT, 2010), para 18.
[13]Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago, Lobban v Jamaica. See also CAT, Concluding Observations: Moldova, CAT/C/MDA/CO/2 (CAT, 2010), para 18.
[16]Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago, Lobban v Jamaica, Griffin v Spain. See also CAT, Concluding Observations: Moldova, CAT/C/MDA/CO/2 (CAT, 2010), para 18.
//**[17]**//Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago, Howell v Jamaica, Lobban v Jamaica, Lantsova v Russian Federation.
[18]Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago, Howell v Jamaica, Lobban v Jamaica, Lantsova v Russian Federation. See also CAT, Concluding Observations: Moldova, CAT/C/MDA/CO/2 (CAT, 2010), para 18.
[19]Cabal and Pasini Bertran v Australia para 7.7; Lantsova v Russian Federation.
[27]Polay Campos v Peru communication 577/1994 (UNHRC 1998) para 8.5.
[28]Iwanczuk v Poland application 25196/94 (ECtHR 2001) paras 58-59.
[29] General Comment 21 para 6. See also Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
[30] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment para 33.
Inhumane conditions of detention are conditions which violate the inherent dignity of the detained person. A detained person should only be subjected to restrictions that are unavoidable due to the deprivation of liberty, with full respect for their human dignity.
In determining whether conditions of detention should be considered inhumane, the nature and context of the treatment, its duration and its physical or mental effects should be considered. Examples of what may constitute inhuman or degrading conditions of detention include: lack of adequate accommodation (including adequate space, access to adequate clothing and bedding, and means to provide for personal hygiene); lack of adequate food and water; lack of minimum privacy and security; denial of access to natural light and exercise opportunities outside cell; lack of access to adequate medical services and denial of opportunity to communicate with the outside world. Degrading treatment such as displaying a prisoner to the press in a cage or requiring a detainee to strip naked in front of prison guards when not necessary and justified by security reasons may also constitute inhumane conditions of detention.
Comprehensive:
Inhumane conditions of detention are conditions which violate the inherent dignity of the detained person. Article 10(1) of the ICCPR provides that ‘All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.’ This provision is linked to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in article 7 of the ICCPR.[1] (See *cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment*). According to the HRC, ‘[p]ersons deprived of their liberty enjoy all the rights set forth in the Covenant, subject to the restrictions that are unavoidable in a closed environment.’[2] This applies to all types of deprivation of liberty including *administrative detention* and *forced institutionalisation*.[3]
In determining whether conditions of detention should be considered inhumane, ‘the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age, state of health or other status of the victim’ should be considered.[4]
Severe inhumane conditions of detention could constitute torture if intentionally inflicted for certain purposes (see *torture*). If death results it could constitute a violation of the right to life.[5] (See *extrajudicial execution or other unlawful killing*).
Relevant international human rights standards to determine what constitutes acceptable treatment are the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. There are also international standards dealing with specific categories of detainees such as children, women and asylum seekers[6] and regional standards.[7]
These rules set out minimum standards that a state should not fall below. The HRC has with reference to the Standard Minimum Rules held that ‘certain minimum standards regarding the conditions of detention must be observed regardless of a State party’s level of development’ and that lack of resources is not a defence for non-compliance.[8] The Standard Minimum Rules and other relevant human rights standards include provisions on registration, separation of categories, accommodation, personal hygiene, clothing and bedding, food, exercise and sport, medical services, discipline and punishment, instruments of restraint, information to and complaints by prisoners, contact with the outside world, books, religion, retention of prisoners property, notification of death, illness, transfer etc, institutional personnel, inspection and rules applicable to specific categories of prisoners.
Examples of situations that have been held by international human rights monitoring bodies to constitute inhumane conditions of detention, separately or in combination, include overcrowded cells and lack of mattresses;[9] dirty cells (vermin,[10] faeces[11]); inadequate ventilation;[12] lack of adequate light;[13] very little time spent outside cell (1 hour per week,[14] 20 minutes per day[15]); inadequate sanitation;[16] inedible or inadequate food;[17] lack of medical treatment;[18] lack of separation from detainees with communicable diseases;[19] restrictions on writing letters;[20] burning of personal belongings;[21] removal of clothes and blankets;[22] prohibition on children from visiting;[23] not being allowed to work[24] or undertake education;[25] and prolonged solitary confinement.[26] Degrading treatment such as displaying a prisoner to the press in a cage[27] or requiring a detainee to strip naked in front of prison guards when ‘not necessary and justified by security reasons’[28] may also constitute inhumane conditions of detention.
The prohibition of inhuman or degrading conditions of detention is linked to the state’s obligation to ensure impartial supervision of all places of detention.[29] Detainees have the right to file complaints without suffering reprisals. All complaints shall be promptly dealt with.[30]
[1]The HRC generally distinguishes between general conditions of detention (article 10) and other types of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, such as physical attacks (article 7). The ACHR adds a provision similar to ICCPR article 10(1) after its prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (ACHR art 5(2). The ACHPR (art 5) and ECHR (art 3) only make reference to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. See also CAT arts 1, 2 and 16 and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance art 17.
[2] HRC General Comment 21 para 3.
[3] For the meaning of deprivation of liberty see *arbitrary arrest and detention*.
[4] Brough v Australia communication 1184/2003 (HRC 2006).
[5] Lantsova v Russian Federation communication 763/1997 (HRC 2002) para 9.2.
[6] UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty; UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules); UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders; UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers.
[7] European Prison Rules; Robben Island Guidelines on Torture (ACmHPR 2002), Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial (ACmHPR) s M7; and Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (ACmHR).
[8] Mukong v Cameroon para 9.3.
[9] Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago communication 938/2000 (UNHRC 2004), Lobban v Jamaica communication 797/1998 (UNHRC 2004), Griffin v Spain, Lantsova v Russian Federation; Cabal and Pasini Bertran v Australia communication 1020/2001 (UNHRC 2003). See also CAT, Concluding Observations: Colombia, CAT/C/CR/31/1 (CAT, 2004) para 9; CAT, Concluding Observations: Greece, A/56/44(SUPP) (CAT, 2001), para 87.
[10] Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago, Griffin v Spain.
[11] Howell v Jamaica communication 798/1998 (UNHRC 2003), Griffin v Spain.
[12] Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago. See also CAT, Concluding Observations: Moldova, CAT/C/MDA/CO/2 (CAT, 2010), para 18.
[13] Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago, Lobban v Jamaica. See also CAT, Concluding Observations: Moldova, CAT/C/MDA/CO/2 (CAT, 2010), para 18.
[14] Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago,
[15] Howell v Jamaica.
[16] Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago, Lobban v Jamaica, Griffin v Spain. See also CAT, Concluding Observations: Moldova, CAT/C/MDA/CO/2 (CAT, 2010), para 18.
//**[17]**// Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago, Howell v Jamaica, Lobban v Jamaica, Lantsova v Russian Federation.
[18] Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago, Howell v Jamaica, Lobban v Jamaica, Lantsova v Russian Federation. See also CAT, Concluding Observations: Moldova, CAT/C/MDA/CO/2 (CAT, 2010), para 18.
[19] Cabal and Pasini Bertran v Australia para 7.7; Lantsova v Russian Federation.
[20] Siewpersaud v Trinidad and Tobago.
[21] Howell v Jamaica.
[22] Brough v Australia.
[23] Howel v Jamaica.
[24] Lobban v Jamaica.
[25] Lobban v Jamaica.
[26] Brough v Australia.
[27] Polay Campos v Peru communication 577/1994 (UNHRC 1998) para 8.5.
[28] Iwanczuk v Poland application 25196/94 (ECtHR 2001) paras 58-59.
[29] General Comment 21 para 6. See also Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
[30] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment para 33.