!"#$%&%"'($)&&)*(&"(&+)(,-(."/)*'0)'&(1*.%'.(2"'3&*12&%/)(
)'.#.)0)'&(%'(&+)(,4(*)/%)5(6*"2)33("7(&+)(-&#'8#*8(9%'%010(
:1$)3(;-9:<(7"*(&+)(=*)#&0)'&("7(>*%3"')*3(
!
December 7, 2012
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Madam Secretary:
In 2010, the United Nations General Assembly tasked the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in
Vienna to “exchange information on best practices (…) and on the revision of existing United Nations
standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners so that they reflect recent advances in correctional
science and best practices”. The process has since gained momentum and a resolution was adopted by the
UNODC in April 2012 that paved the way for targeted revisions in a preliminary list of areas identified in
the report of the first Inter-Governmental Expert Meeting (IGEM) and extended the work of the IGEM
which will meet again in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from 11 to 13 December.1
In an effort to provide expert and civil society input for this meeting, Essex University and Penal Reform
International convened a meeting of independent experts in early October to draft recommendations on
how the rules could be revised. The outcome document of this meeting was released on 21 November and
proposed concrete revisions based on current international norms and standards in the areas proposed for
possible reform. The document also identified outdated language and gaps in the Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (“SMR”) that exist as a result of international legal developments
that have taken place since the Rules’ adoption in 1955.2
The undersigned organizations fully support the Essex document and call on the United States
government to adopt the document’s proposed changes to the SMR. We also endorse the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) recommendation for specific targeted revisions on the use of solitary
confinement, as well as the Amnesty International (AI) recommendation to include “sexual orientation”
and “gender identity” as prohibited grounds for discrimination in prisons.3

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1

A working paper drafted by the UNODC Secretariat in preparation for the meeting in Buenos Aires is available
here: http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/EGM-Uploads/IEGMSMR_II_Working_paper_prepared_by_the_Secretariat.pdf
2
The Essex document is available at PRI’s website, alongside a Joint NGO Briefing on the process of the SMR
Review thus far: http://www.penalreform.org/news/55-years-modernising-un-standard-minimum-rules-treatmentprisoners
3
Expert Group Meeting on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners Buenos Aires, Dec. 11-13,
2012, Revising the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners: Amnesty International Briefing
Recommending Inclusion of 'Sexual Orientation' and 'Gender Identity' as Prohibited Grounds for Discrimination in
Prisons, U.N. Doc. UNODOC/CCPCJ/EG.6/2012/NGO/3 (Nov. 26, 2012), available at
http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/EGM-Uploads/NGO-3-AI.pdf.

!"#$%&%"'($)&&)*(&"(&+)(,-(."/)*'0)'&(1*.%'.(2"'3&*12&%/)(
)'.#.)0)'&(%'(&+)(,4(*)/%)5(6*"2)33("7(&+)(-&#'8#*8(9%'%010(
:1$)3(;-9:<(7"*(&+)(=*)#&0)'&("7(>*%3"')*3(
!
While we recognize the United States’ ongoing participation in this process, we write to urge the United
States delegation to the meeting in Buenos Aires to take a more active role in supporting progressive
revisions to the SMR. Previously, input from the United States to this process has been lacking at best,
and has fallen short of its human rights commitments.4
In 2010, the U.S. government committed to using its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the Human
Rights Council to “deliver the progress [its] people demand and deserve” on human rights. Through the
UPR, the administration formally committed to take a number of concrete steps to improve U.S. human
rights performance at home. In the area of criminal justice, the United States committed, among other
things, to “ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by persons deprived of their liberty, including by
way of ensuring treatment in maximum security prisons in conformity with international law.”5
The SMR review process offers the United States an opportunity to put muscle behind its rhetoric and
make significant steps toward fulfilling its UPR commitment through constructive engagement. We urge
the United States to support progressive revisions to the SMR that would prohibit the use of solitary
confinement for juveniles, pregnant women, women with infants and breastfeeding mothers, and persons
with mental illnesses. We also call on the United States to support more robust protections against the
use of long-term solitary confinement in Rule 31, as outlined in the attached ACLU statement.
We thank you for your continued commitment to and work in support of human rights, and for your
consideration of this urgent request. For any questions, please contact Jamil Dakwar, ACLU’s Human
Rights Program Director at: jdakwar@aclu.org or David Fathi, ACLU’s National Prison Project Director
and who will be attending the meeting in Buenos Aires at: dfathi@npp-aclu.org.
Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Americans for Immigrant Justice, formerly Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center
Amnesty International USA
Casa Esperanza (Bound Brook, NJ)
Center for Constitutional Rights
Criminal Defense Clinic, CUNY School of Law
Human Rights Defense Center
Human Rights in Criminal Sentencing Project, Center for Law and Global Justice, University of San
Francisco School of Law
International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination
International CURE
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4

See, for example, the response of the United States Government submitted to the Open-Ended Intergovernmental
Group of Experts in preparation for the December meeting in Buenos Aires, available at
http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/EGM-Uploads/USA-GOV-34-En.pdf. The United
States Government also submitted a second response, available at https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-andprison-reform/EGM-Uploads/USA-ADD1.pdf.
5
Humanrights.gov, Accepted UPR Recommendations (March 2012) ¶ 177, available at
http://www.humanrights.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/USAcceptedRecommendations-2010UPR.pdf.

!"#$%&%"'($)&&)*(&"(&+)(,-(."/)*'0)'&(1*.%'.(2"'3&*12&%/)(
)'.#.)0)'&(%'(&+)(,4(*)/%)5(6*"2)33("7(&+)(-&#'8#*8(9%'%010(
:1$)3(;-9:<(7"*(&+)(=*)#&0)'&("7(>*%3"')*3(
!
International Human Rights Clinic, Santa Clara School of Law
Just Detention International
Justice Strategies
Labour Health and Human Rights Development Centre
Maria Baldini-Potermin & Associates, PC
National Center for Lesbian Rights
NC Immigrant Rights Project
Pennsylvania Council of Churches
Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project
The Advocates for Human Rights
The Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance
US Human Rights Network

Revising the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners:
Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union on Solitary Confinement
Introduction
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) submits this statement to the 2nd Meeting Openended Intergovernmental Expert Group on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners (henceforth “SMR”), to take place in Buenos Aires, Argentina from 11-13 December
2012, pursuant to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 65/230 of 21 December 2010.
Having participated in the Expert Meeting on the SMR at the University of Essex and in
subsequent discussions regarding the outcome document of that Meeting, the ACLU has
endorsed that document1 as well as Amnesty International’s recommendation to include ‘sexual
orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ as prohibited grounds for discrimination in prisons.2 The
purpose of this statement is to highlight a single issue: the need for more robust protections in
Rule 31 against the use of long-term solitary confinement.
Current Wording and Recommended Changes
Rule 31 currently reads:
31. Corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhuman or
degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary
offences.
The ACLU recommends that this Rule be revised to read as follows:
31. (1) Corporal punishment, prolonged confinement without sustained and meaningful
daily human contact, punishment by placing in a dark cell, the suspension or restriction of
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1

University of Essex, Expert Meeting at the University of Essex on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment
of Prisoners Review, Summary (2012), available at
http://www.penalreform.org/files/Summary%20of%20Expert%20Meeting%20at%20the%20University%20of%20E
ssex%20on%20the%20SMR%2020%20November%202012_0.pdf.
2
Expert Group Meeting on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners Buenos Aires, Dec. 11-13,
2012, Revising the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners: Amnesty International Briefing
Recommending Inclusion of 'Sexual Orientation' and 'Gender Identity' as Prohibited Grounds for Discrimination in
Prisons, U.N. Doc. UNODOC/CCPCJ/EG.6/2012/NGO/3 (Nov. 26, 2012), available at
http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/EGM-Uploads/NGO-3-AI.pdf.

1!
!

water or food and all other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely
prohibited.
(2) Solitary confinement shall only be used in exceptional cases when deemed absolutely
necessary to prevent death, serious bodily injury, or a major breach of prison
security. Solitary confinement shall in all cases be used for as short a time as possible
and shall be subject to regular, substantive independent review. Solitary confinement
exceeding 30 days in duration shall be presumed to be inconsistent with this Rule.
(3) Solitary confinement of juveniles, of pregnant women, women with infants and
breastfeeding mothers in prison and of persons with mental illness shall be prohibited.
(4) All punishments shall be duly recorded.3
This submission focuses solely on explaining the rationale for the ACLU’s recommendations (1)
to add a requirement that solitary confinement be used only when absolutely necessary to prevent
death, serious bodily injury, or a major breach of prison security, and (2) to add a presumption
that solitary confinement exceeding 30 days in duration is impermissible. With the exception of
these recommendations, the changes recommended here to Rule 31 are fully consistent with
those of the Essex Meeting experts; those changes are found in its outcome document to which
the ACLU is a party and are explained and justified there.
Rationale for Requirement that Solitary Confinement be Absolutely Necessary to Prevent
Death, Serious Bodily Injury, or a Major Breach of Prison Security
Solitary confinement of prisoners is found, in some form, in every prison system. While it is
sometimes used to incapacitate prisoners who are highly dangerous, it is often used as
punishment for nonviolent and relatively minor violations of prison rules.4 In addition, in some
prison systems, certain categories of prisoners (such as those sentenced to death or life
imprisonment) are automatically placed in solitary confinement without regard to their conduct
in prison.5 A requirement that solitary confinement be used only when absolutely necessary to
prevent death, serious bodily injury, or a major breach of prison security will make clear that
such practices are not consistent with the Rule.
Rationale for Presumptive Limitation of Solitary Confinement to No More Than 30 Days
Since the promulgation of the SMRs in 1955, a substantial body of research has demonstrated the
harmful, and sometimes devastating, effects of solitary confinement on physical and mental
health.6 These harmful effects are most starkly illustrated by the significantly higher rates of
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3

Text in bold represents proposed additions to the revised text of Rule 31 recommended by the Essex Meeting.
American Civil Liberties Union, Boxed In: The True Cost of Extreme Isolation in New York’s Prisons (2012)
(describing solitary confinement as punishment for minor, nonviolent misbehavior) (United States).
5
Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
3 August 2009, UN Doc A/64/215, para. 53 (prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment held in solitary confinement)
(Moldova).
6
See, e.g., Sharon Shalev, A Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement, London: Mannheim Centre for Criminology,
London School of Economics (2008); Stuart Grassian, Psychopathological Effects of Solitary Confinement, 140
4

2!
!

suicide among prisoners in solitary confinement than among those in the general prison
population. While some groups, such as juveniles and persons with mental illness, are
particularly vulnerable, the harmful effects of this practice are not limited to these populations.
The harms of solitary confinement are closely tied to its duration. One study found measurable
changes in brain activity after only seven days of solitary confinement.7 In 2005, a group of
psychiatrists and psychologists surveyed the existing literature and concluded that “no study of
the effects of solitary … confinement that lasted longer than 60 days failed to find evidence of
negative psychological effects.”8
Despite this growing body of evidence, indefinite and long-term solitary confinement exists in
many states.9 While some authorities recommend that solitary confinement be imposed only for
the shortest possible time,10 such a formulation lacks precision and is open to a wide range of
interpretations. Other authorities recommend specific limitations. The European Committee for
the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
recommends that in the case of solitary confinement as a disciplinary sanction, “the maximum
period should be no higher than 14 days for a given offence, and preferably lower.”11 The UN
Special Rapporteur on Torture has called for “an absolute prohibition on solitary confinement
exceeding 15 consecutive days.”12 The inclusion of a specific durational limit in the Rule will
provide concrete guidance to prison administrators and discourage the practice of indefinite and
long-term solitary confinement.
For any questions, please contact David Fathi, the ACLU’s National Prison Project Director who
will be attending the meeting in Buenos Aires at: dfathi@npp-aclu.org, or Jamil Dakwar, the
ACLU’s Human Rights Program Director at: jdakwar@aclu.org.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AM. J. OF PSYCHIATRY 1450 (1983); R. Korn, The Effects of Confinement in the High Security Unit at
Lexington, 15 SOC. JUST. 8 (1988); S.L. Brodsky & F.R. Scogin, Inmates in Protective Custody: First Data on
Emotional Effects, 1 FORENSIC REP. 267 (1988); Craig Haney, Mental Health Issues in Long Term Solitary and
''Supermax'' Confinement, 49 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 124 (2003).
7
Paul Gendreau, N.L. Freedman, & G.J.S. Wilde, Changes in EEG Alpha Frequency and Evoked Response Latency
During Solitary Confinement, 79 J. OF ABNORMAL PSYCH. 54, 57!58 (1972).
8
Wilkinson v. Austin, United States Supreme Court, No 04-495, Brief of Professors and Practitioners of Psychology
and Psychiatry as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent, 2005 WL 539137, at *4 (March 3, 2005).
9
A.B. v. Russia, Application No. 1439/06, European Court of Human Rights, para. 103 (2010) (three years);
Silverstein v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 704 F.Supp.2d 1077 (D. Colo. 2010) (United States) (twenty-seven years).
10
European Prison Rules, Rule 60(5): “Solitary confinement shall be imposed as a punishment only in exceptional
cases and for a specified period of time, which shall be as short as possible.”
11
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 21st
General Report of the CPT, 1 August 2010 – 31 July 2011, p. 43. “Further, there should be a prohibition of
sequential disciplinary sentences resulting in an uninterrupted period of solitary confinement in excess of the
maximum period.” Ibid.
12
First interim report to the General Assembly, 5 August 2011, UN Doc A/66/268, para. 76.

3!
!