2.3.13 Solitary confinement Condensed: Solitary confinement is the prohibition of contact with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons. Solitary confinement shall only be permitted as a disposition of last resort and for a strictly limited time, when it is evident that it is necessary to ensure legitimate interests relating to the institution’s internal security, and to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to life and integrity of persons deprived of liberty or the personnel. Prolonged solitary confinement may constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Comments: I would prefer thtat we have a limited time for the solitary confinement based on the best practice from several prisons and different regions. Prolonged solitary can be interpreted differently according to the position of the authorities. Comprehensive: According to the ECtHR:[1] Complete sensory isolation coupled with total social isolation can destroy the personality and constitutes a form of inhuman treatment that cannot be justified by the requirements of security or any other reason. On the other hand, the prohibition of contact with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment. Punishment shall not include a total prohibition on family contact.[2] (See *access to the outside world*). The Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas provide:[3] Solitary confinement shall only be permitted as a disposition of last resort and for a strictly limited time, when it is evident that it is necessary to ensure legitimate interests relating to the institution’s internal security, and to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to life and integrity of persons deprived of liberty or the personnel. The Bangkok Rules provide: ‘Punishment by close confinement or disciplinary segregation shall not be applied to pregnant women, women with infants and breastfeeding mothers in prison.’[4] In Polay Campos v Peru, a man spent nine months placed in solitary confinement for 23 and a half hours a day in a cell measuring 2 by 2 metres; he was not allowed to write or to speak to anyone and was only allowed out of his cell once a day, for 30 minutes. The HRC held that, ‘this total isolation of Mr Polay Campos for a period of a year and the restrictions placed on correspondence between him and his family constitute inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7’.[5] In Larrosa v Uruguay, the HRC held that solitary confinement for a month in a small cell without windows and with artificial light on for 24 hours a day violated the ICCPR.[6] In Kang v Republic of Korea, a political prisoner had been held for 13 years in solitary confinement. The HRC held that such a measure ‘requires the most serious and detailed justification’.[7] In the absence of such a justification the Committee found that Korea had violated the ICCPR. The HRC has held that ‘prolonged solitary confinement’ may constitute *torture* or *cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment*.[8] In Vuolanne v Finland, a military conscript who had been absent without permission was sanctioned with ten days of ‘close arrest’ in almost total isolation. The HRC held:[9] In no case was severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, inflicted upon Antti Vuolanne by or at the instigation of a public official; nor does it appear that the solitary confinement to which the author was subjected, having regard to its strictness, duration and the end pursued, produced any adverse physical or mental effects on him. Furthermore, it has not been established that Mr Vuolanne suffered any humiliation or that his dignity was interfered with apart from the embarrassment inherent in the disciplinary measure to which he was subjected. The HRC held that the solitary confinement did not constitute inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of the ICCPR.
[1]Öcalan v Turkey application 46221/99 (ECtHR (GC) 2005) para 191. [2] Bangkok Rules rule 23; European Prison Rules art 60(4). [3]Principle XXII(3). See also European Prison Rules art 60(5). [4]United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) rule 22. [5]Polay Campos v Peru, communication 577/1994 (HRC 1997) para 8.6; CAT, Concluding Observations: Denmark, UN Doc CCPR/CO/70/DNK (2000) para 12. [6]Communication 88/1981 (HRC 1983) para 10.3. [7] Communication communication 878/1999 (HRC 2003) para 7.3. [8]HRC General Comment 20 para 6. On solitary confinement see also the Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement annexed to the Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, A/63/175 (2008). [9] Communication 265/1987 (HRC 1989) para 9.2.
Condensed:
Solitary confinement is the prohibition of contact with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons. Solitary confinement shall only be permitted as a disposition of last resort and for a strictly limited time, when it is evident that it is necessary to ensure legitimate interests relating to the institution’s internal security, and to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to life and integrity of persons deprived of liberty or the personnel. Prolonged solitary confinement may constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Comments: I would prefer thtat we have a limited time for the solitary confinement based on the best practice from several prisons and different regions. Prolonged solitary can be interpreted differently according to the position of the authorities.
Comprehensive:
According to the ECtHR:[1]
Complete sensory isolation coupled with total social isolation can destroy the personality and constitutes a form of inhuman treatment that cannot be justified by the requirements of security or any other reason. On the other hand, the prohibition of contact with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment.
Punishment shall not include a total prohibition on family contact.[2] (See *access to the outside world*). The Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas provide:[3]
Solitary confinement shall only be permitted as a disposition of last resort and for a strictly limited time, when it is evident that it is necessary to ensure legitimate interests relating to the institution’s internal security, and to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to life and integrity of persons deprived of liberty or the personnel.
The Bangkok Rules provide: ‘Punishment by close confinement or disciplinary segregation shall not be applied to pregnant women, women with infants and breastfeeding mothers in prison.’[4]
In Polay Campos v Peru, a man spent nine months placed in solitary confinement for 23 and a half hours a day in a cell measuring 2 by 2 metres; he was not allowed to write or to speak to anyone and was only allowed out of his cell once a day, for 30 minutes. The HRC held that, ‘this total isolation of Mr Polay Campos for a period of a year and the restrictions placed on correspondence between him and his family constitute inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7’.[5] In Larrosa v Uruguay, the HRC held that solitary confinement for a month in a small cell without windows and with artificial light on for 24 hours a day violated the ICCPR.[6] In Kang v Republic of Korea, a political prisoner had been held for 13 years in solitary confinement. The HRC held that such a measure ‘requires the most serious and detailed justification’.[7] In the absence of such a justification the Committee found that Korea had violated the ICCPR.
The HRC has held that ‘prolonged solitary confinement’ may constitute *torture* or *cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment*.[8]
In Vuolanne v Finland, a military conscript who had been absent without permission was sanctioned with ten days of ‘close arrest’ in almost total isolation. The HRC held:[9]
In no case was severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, inflicted upon Antti Vuolanne by or at the instigation of a public official; nor does it appear that the solitary confinement to which the author was subjected, having regard to its strictness, duration and the end pursued, produced any adverse physical or mental effects on him. Furthermore, it has not been established that Mr Vuolanne suffered any humiliation or that his dignity was interfered with apart from the embarrassment inherent in the disciplinary measure to which he was subjected.
The HRC held that the solitary confinement did not constitute inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of the ICCPR.
[1]Öcalan v Turkey application 46221/99 (ECtHR (GC) 2005) para 191.
[2] Bangkok Rules rule 23; European Prison Rules art 60(4).
[3]Principle XXII(3). See also European Prison Rules art 60(5).
[4]United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) rule 22.
[5] Polay Campos v Peru, communication 577/1994 (HRC 1997) para 8.6; CAT, Concluding Observations: Denmark, UN Doc CCPR/CO/70/DNK (2000) para 12.
[6]Communication 88/1981 (HRC 1983) para 10.3.
[7] Communication communication 878/1999 (HRC 2003) para 7.3.
[8]HRC General Comment 20 para 6. On solitary confinement see also the Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement annexed to the Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, A/63/175 (2008).
[9] Communication 265/1987 (HRC 1989) para 9.2.