A/66/268

United Nations

General Assembly

Distr.: General
5 August 2011
Original: English

Sixty-sixth session
Item 69 (b) of the provisional agenda*
Promotion and protection of human rights: human
rights questions, including alternative approaches for
improving the effective enjoyment of human rights
and fundamental freedoms

Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment
Note by the Secretary-General
The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the General Assembly the
interim report prepared by the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E.
Méndez, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 65/205.

* A/66/150.

11-44570 (E) 010911

*1144570*

A/66/268

Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human
Rights Council on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment
Summary
In the present report, submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution
65/205, the Special Rapporteur addresses issues of special concern and recent
developments in the context of his mandate.
The Special Rapporteur draws the attention of the General Assembly to his
assessment that solitary confinement is practised in a majority of States. He finds
that where the physical conditions and the prison regime of solitary confinement
cause severe mental and physical pain or suffering, when used as a punishment,
during pre-trial detention, indefinitely, prolonged, on juveniles or persons with
mental disabilities, it can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment and even torture. In addition, the use of solitary confinement increases
the risk that acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment will go undetected and unchallenged.
The report highlights a number of general principles to help to guide States to
re-evaluate and minimize its use and, in certain cases, abolish the practice of solitary
confinement. The practice should be used only in very exceptional circumstances, as
a last resort, for as short a time as possible. He further emphasizes the need for
minimum procedural safeguards, internal and external, to ensure that all persons
deprived of their liberty are treated with humanity and respect for the inherent
dignity of the human person.

2

11-44570

A/66/268

Contents
Page

I.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

II.

Activities related to the mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

III.

Solitary confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

A.

Overview of work undertaken by the mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

B.

History and current practice of solitary confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

C.

Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

D.

Legal framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

E.

States’ rationale for the use of solitary confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

F.

Conditions of solitary confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

G.

Prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

H.

Psychological and physiological effects of solitary confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

I.

Latent effects of solitary confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

J.

Vulnerable individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

K.

When solitary confinement amounts to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

Conclusions and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

Effects of solitary confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

IV.
Annex

11-44570

3

A/66/268

I. Introduction
1.
The present report, submitted pursuant to paragraph 39 of General Assembly
resolution 65/205, is the thirteenth submitted to the General Assembly by the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. It is the first report submitted by the present mandate holder.
2.
The Special Rapporteur wishes to draw attention to his report to the Human
Rights Council (A/HRC/16/52), in which he outlined his vision, working methods
and priorities for his tenure as Special Rapporteur.

II. Activities related to the mandate
3.
Below is a summary of the activities carried out by the Special Rapporteur
pursuant to the mandate since the submission of his report to the Human Rights
Council (A/HRC/16/52 and Add.1-6).
Communications concerning human rights violations
4.
During the period from 1 December 2010 to 1 July 2011, he sent 20 letters of
allegations of torture to 18 Governments, and 95 urgent appeals on behalf of persons
who might be at risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment to 48 Governments. In
the same period 82 responses were received.
Country visits
5.
With respect to fact-finding missions, an anticipated country visit to
Kyrgyzstan for May 2011 was postponed, at the request of the Government, owing
to ongoing political developments. By letter dated 28 July 2011, the Government of
the Kyrgyz Republic proposed a country visit for the second half of August 2011.
The Special Rapporteur welcomes this invitation; however, because of the short
notice, he is discussing potential dates with the Government at the time of
submitting the present report. He has accepted an invitation from the Government of
Iraq to visit the country in October 2011. He has also been invited to visit Bahrain
and is discussing dates with the Government. In addition to the pending country
visit requests (see A/HRC/16/52, para. 6) the Special Rapporteur has requested a
visit to Morocco with respect to Western Sahara.
6.
The Special Rapporteur conducted a visit to Tunisia from 15 to 22 May 2011.
He shared his preliminary findings with the interim Government and issued a press
statement on 22 May expressing his appreciation to the Government for the full
cooperation extended to him. He noted that the Government had undertaken a series
of positive steps towards ensuring accountability and long-term reforms. However,
he is of the view that a “wait and see attitude” in anticipation of the Constituent
Assembly election may be hampering the possibility of delivering bold and
aggressive steps in restoring justice for past and recent abuses. The Special
Rapporteur stressed that swift, effective and independent criminal investigations
against alleged perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment should be ensured and
administrative programmes should be launched offering redress and reparation
services to victims of past and recent violations. The report of the mission to Tunisia
will be presented to the Human Rights Council at its nineteenth session in March
2012.

4

11-44570

A/66/268

Key press statements
7.
The Special Rapporteur issued the following press statements (many were joint
statements with other mandate holders):
• On 31 December 2010 — expressing serious concern that enforced or
involuntary disappearances, arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial, summary or
arbitrary executions, and acts of sexual violence may have occurred or may
still be occurring in Côte d’Ivoire in relation to the presidential elections.
• On 14 January 2011 — urging the Government of Tunisia to control the use of
force against peaceful demonstrations, after at least 21 deaths were officially
confirmed.
• On 3 February 2011 — on public unrest in Belarus, Egypt and Tunisia and the
alleged infliction of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in
connection with suppression of peaceful demonstrations.
• On 17 February — urging the transitional Government in Egypt to establish an
independent inquiry to investigate human rights violations during the
revolution in that country, with the powers to transmit names and evidence for
prosecution to the relevant authorities.
• On 18 February — urging the Governments of Bahrain and the Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya to guarantee the right to peaceful protest and immediately cease the
use of excessive and lethal force.
• On 22 February — on the situation of human rights defenders expressing
serious concerns about gross violations of human rights that were being
committed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
• On 3 March 2011 — condemning the violent crackdown on protesters in
Yemen, and urging the Government to stop the excessive use of force as a
means to end ongoing protests.
• On 22 March — expressing concerns about increased incidents of serious
human rights violations in the capital of Bahrain.
• On 1 April 2011 — expressing concerns about serious human rights violations
in Côte d’Ivoire, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings,
killing and maiming of children, and sexual violence which may amount to
international crimes, and expressed the full support of the Special Rapporteur
and other mandate holders for Security Council resolution 1975 (2011).
• On 11 April and 12 July — expressing frustration that despite his repeated
requests to visit Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, the Government of
the United States of America has not granted him unmonitored access to the
detainee. The question of unfettered access goes beyond this case and touches
on whether the Special Rapporteur would be able to conduct private and
unmonitored interviews with detainees if he were to conduct a country visit to
the United States.
• On 15 April — denouncing the rising death toll and brutal crackdown on
peaceful protesters, journalists and human rights defenders in the Syrian Arab
Republic despite the Government’s promises of reforms and consultations to
end the 48-year-old emergency rule.

11-44570

5

A/66/268

• On 1 July 2011 — urging the Government of the United States to stop the
scheduled execution of Humberto Leal García in Texas.
Highlights of key presentations/consultations/training courses
8.
From 8 to 9 February 2011, the Special Rapporteur participated in a meeting
sponsored by Amnesty International in London to discuss “Developing International
Best Practice for Inquiries and Investigations into Torture”. He also spoke at the All
Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition.
9.
On 22 February, he delivered a statement to the American Academy of
Forensic Sciences at its 63rd annual meeting on “International framework and
mechanisms for documenting conditions of detention, torture and ill-treatment”.
10. On 28 February, he met with high-ranking officials from the Department of
State and the Department of Defense of the United States of America in Washington,
D.C., and again with the Department of Defense on 22 April to discuss issues of
mutual concern.
11. From 6 to 10 March 2011, the Special Rapporteur was in Geneva for the
sixteenth session of the Human Rights Council and met with the Ambassadors of
Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Thailand and the United States. He also met with all the
Human Rights Council regional groups except for the Africa Group, which
unfortunately could not be scheduled.
12. On 16 and 17 March, in Washington, D.C., he participated in a meeting with
the Chair of the Committee against Torture, the Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee on
Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, the Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a representative of the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the Special Rapporteur on Detained
Persons of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The meeting
was organized jointly by the Washington College of Law of American University
and the Association for the Prevention of Torture to discuss ways to strengthen the
working relations of those mechanisms.
13. From 18 to 20 March, the Special Rapporteur made two presentations to the
annual General Meeting and the fiftieth anniversary commemoration of the United
States Section of Amnesty International in San Francisco.
14. On 1 June 2011, he was the keynote speaker at an event in Washington, D.C.,
organized by several faith-based groups and entitled “Accountability Today:
Preventing Torture Tomorrow”.
15. From 15 to 17 June, the Special Rapporteur chaired, with the support of the
Government of the Netherlands, a regional consultation on torture for the Americas
in Santiago, Chile. The regional consultation was organized in partnership with the
Association for the Prevention of Torture, the Centro de Estudios Legales y
Sociales, Corporación Humanas — Centro Regional de Derechos Humanos y
Justicia de Género and Conectas Direitos Humanos, and was an opportunity for
governments, national institutions and organizations of civil society from
12 countries to discuss follow-up to recommendations of country visits and to
strengthen local and regional protection mechanisms against torture and illtreatment.

6

11-44570

A/66/268

16. On 20 June, he met with the Director General for Foreign Policy, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Chile, in Santiago.
17. From 27 June to 1 July, the Special Rapporteur participated in the eighteenth
annual meeting of Special Rapporteurs in Geneva. He also met with representatives
of the Governments of Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation,
Tunisia and the United States of America.
18. On 7 July 2011, he met in Brasilia with the Minister for Human Rights in the
Government of Brazil.

III. Solitary confinement
A.

Overview of work undertaken by the mandate
19. In his first report as Special Rapporteur (A/HRC/16/52, para. 70), he
recognized that “the question as to whether ... prolonged solitary confinement”
constituted “per se cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has given
rise to much debate and discussion in the Human Rights Council”, and believed that
“the international community as a whole would greatly benefit from a dispassionate
and rational discussion of the issues”.
20. The Special Rapporteur has received complaints that solitary confinement is
used in some countries in the context of administrative detention for national
security or as a method to fight organized crime, as well as in immigration
detention. He undertook this study because he found the practice of solitary
confinement to be global in nature and subject to widespread abuse. In particular,
the social isolation and sensory deprivation that is imposed by some States does, in
some circumstances, amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and even
torture.
21. The Special Rapporteur’s predecessors have noted that prolonged solitary
confinement may itself amount to prohibited ill-treatment or torture
(E/CN.4/1999/61, para. 394, and E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (m)).
22. The Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement was
annexed to the former Special Rapporteur’s 2008 interim report to the General
Assembly (A/63/175, annex). The report concluded that “prolonged isolation of
detainees may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and,
in certain instances, may amount to torture. ... [T]he use of solitary confinement
should be kept to a minimum, used in very exceptional cases, for as short a time as
possible, and only as a last resort. Regardless of the specific circumstances of its
use, effort is required to raise the level of social contacts for prisoners: prisonerprison staff contact, allowing access to social activities with other prisoners,
allowing more visits and providing access to mental health services” (A/63/175,
paras. 77 and 83).

B.

History and current practice of solitary confinement
23. The history of the use of solitary confinement on detainees has been well
documented. The practice can be traced to the 1820s in the United States of

11-44570

7

A/66/268

America, where it was believed that isolation of prisoners would aid in their
rehabilitation. Under this model prisoners spent their entire day alone, mostly within
the confines of their cells, including for work, in order to reflect on their
transgressions away from negative external influences. Beginning in the 1830s,
European and South American countries adopted this practice (A/63/175, para. 81).
It must be recognized that 200 years ago this model was a socially and morally
progressive way to deal with punishment, as it emphasized rehabilitation and
attempted to substitute for the death penalty, limb amputations and other penalties
then prevalent.
24. States around the world continue to use solitary confinement extensively (see
A/63/175, para. 78). In some countries, the use of Super Maximum Security Prisons
to impose solitary confinement as a normal, rather than an “exceptional”, practice
for inmates is considered problematic. In the United States, for example, it is
estimated that between 20,000 and 25,000 individuals are being held in isolation. 1
Another example is the extensive use of solitary confinement in relation to pretrial
detention, which for many years has been an integral part of the Scandinavian prison
practice. 2 Some form of isolation from the general prison population is used almost
everywhere as punishment for breaches of prison discipline. Many States now use
solitary confinement more routinely and for longer durations. For example, in
Brazil, Law 10792 of 2003, amending the existing “Law of Penal Execution”,
contemplates a “differentiated” disciplinary regime in an individual cell for up to
360 days, without prejudice to extensions of similar length for new offences and up
to one sixth of the prison term. In 2010, the Province of Buenos Aires in Argentina
instituted a Programme of Prevention of Violent Behaviour in its prisons which
consists of isolation for a minimum of nine months (the initial three months in full
isolation), a term that — according to prison monitors — is frequently extended.

C.

Definition
25. There is no universally agreed upon definition of solitary confinement. The
Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement defines solitary
confinement as the physical isolation of individuals who are confined to their cells
for 22 to 24 hours a day. In many jurisdictions, prisoners held in solitary
confinement are allowed out of their cells for one hour of solitary exercise a day.
Meaningful contact with other people is typically reduced to a minimum. The
reduction in stimuli is not only quantitative but also qualitative. The available
stimuli and the occasional social contacts are seldom freely chosen, generally
monotonous, and often not empathetic.
26. Solitary confinement is also known as “segregation”, “isolation”, 3
“separation”, “cellular”, 4 “lockdown”, “Supermax”, “the hole” or “Secure Housing

__________________
1

2

3

4

8

Alexandra Naday, Joshua D. Freilich and Jeff Mellow, “The Elusive Data on Supermax
Confinement”, The Prison Journal, vol. 88, issue 1, p. 69 (2008).
Peter Scharff Smith, “The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: a brief history and
review of the literature”, Crime and Justice, vol. 34 (2006), p. 441.
Jeffrey L. Metzner, M.D., and Jamie Fellner, “Solitary Confinement and Mental Illness in U.S.
Prisons: A Challenge for Medical Ethics”, The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry
and the Law, vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 104-108 (2010).
Sharon Shalev, A Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement (London, Mannheim Centre for
Criminology, 2008), p. 1.

11-44570

A/66/268

Unit (SHU)”, 5 but all these terms can involve different factors. For the purposes of
this report, the Special Rapporteur defines solitary confinement as the physical and
social isolation of individuals who are confined to their cells for 22 to 24 hours a
day. Of particular concern to the Special Rapporteur is prolonged solitary
confinement, which he defines as any period of solitary confinement in excess of
15 days. He is aware of the arbitrary nature of the effort to establish a moment in
time which an already harmful regime becomes prolonged and therefore
unacceptably painful. He concludes that 15 days is the limit between “solitary
confinement” and “prolonged solitary confinement” because at that point, according
to the literature surveyed, some of the harmful psychological effects of isolation can
become irreversible. 6

D.

Legal framework
27. International and regional human rights bodies have taken different approaches
to address the underlying conditions of social and physical isolation of detainees,
and whether such practices constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment. For example, while the European Court of Human Rights
has confronted solitary confinement regimes with regularity, the United Nations
Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have
most extensively addressed the related phenomenon of incommunicado detention.
For the purposes of this report, the Special Rapporteur will highlight the work of
universal and regional human rights bodies on solitary confinement only.

1.

International level
General Assembly
28. In 1990, the General Assembly adopted resolution 45/111, the Basic Principles
for the Treatment of Prisoners. Principle 7 states that efforts to abolish solitary
confinement as a punishment, or to restrict its use, should be undertaken and
encouraged.
29. In the same year, the General Assembly adopted resolution 45/113, the United
Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. In paragraph
67 the Assembly asserted that “All disciplinary measures constituting cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment shall be strictly prohibited, including ... solitary
confinement or any other punishment that may compromise the physical or mental
health of the juvenile concerned”.
United Nations treaty bodies
30. The Human Rights Committee, in paragraph 6 of its General Comment No. 20,
noted that prolonged solitary confinement of the detained or imprisoned person
might amount to acts prohibited by article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil

__________________
5
6

11-44570

Ken Strutin, “Solitary Confinement”, LLRX.com, published on 10 August 2010.
Craig Haney, “Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and ‘Supermax’ Confinement, Crime
and Delinquency”, vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 124-156.

9

A/66/268

and Political Rights. 7 In its concluding observations on Rwanda, the Human Rights
Committee recommended that “The State party should put an end to the sentence of
solitary confinement ...” (CCPR/C/RWA/CO/3, para. 14).
31. The Committee against Torture has recognized the harmful physical and
mental effects of prolonged solitary confinement and has expressed concern about
its use, including as a preventive measure during pretrial detention, as well as a
disciplinary measure. The Committee has recommended that the use of solitary
confinement be abolished, particularly during pretrial detention, or at least that it
should be strictly and specifically regulated by law (maximum duration, etc.) and
exercised under judicial supervision, and used only in exceptional circumstances,
such as when the safety of persons or property is involved (A/63/175, para. 80). The
Committee has recommended that persons under the age of 18 should not be
subjected to solitary confinement (CAT/C/MAC/CO/4, para. 8).
32. The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment has pointed out that prolonged solitary
confinement may amount to an act of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment and recommended that solitary confinement should not be
used in the case of minors or the mentally disabled (CAT/OP/PRY/1, para. 185). The
Subcommittee has also recommended that a medical officer should visit prisoners
held in solitary confinement every day, on the understanding that such visits should
be in the interests of the prisoners’ health. Furthermore, prisoners held in solitary
confinement for more than 12 hours should have access to fresh air for at least
one hour each day (CAT/OP/PRY/1, para. 184). In view of the condition of solitary
confinement, the Subcommittee has pointed out that beds and proper mattresses
should be made available to all inmates, including prisoners held in solitary
confinement (CAT/OP/HND/1, para. 227 (a), and CAT/OP/PRY/1, para. 280).
33. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its General Comment No. 10
(2007), emphasized that “disciplinary measures in violation of article 37 [of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child] must be strictly forbidden, including ...
closed or solitary confinement, or any other punishment that may compromise the
physical or mental health or well-being of the child concerned” (CRC/C/GC/10,
para. 89). Moreover, the Committee has urged States parties to prohibit and abolish
the use of solitary confinement against children (CRC/C/15/Add.151, para. 41;
CRC/C/15/Add.220, para. 45 (d); and CRC/C/15/Add.232, para. 36 (a)).
2.

Regional level
European Court of Human Rights
34. In its evaluation of cases of solitary confinement, the European Court of
Human Rights considers the rationale given by the State for the imposition of social
and physical isolation. The Court has found violations of article 3 of the European
Convention on Human Rights where States do not provide a security-based

__________________
7

10

Human Rights Committee, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General
Comment No. 20 (A/47/40, annex VI.A), article 7 (Prohibition of torture, or other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 10 March 1992.

11-44570

A/66/268

justification for the use of solitary confinement. 8 In circumstances of prolonged
solitary confinement, the Court has held that the justification for solitary
confinement must be explained to the individual and the justification must be
“increasingly detailed and compelling” as time goes on. 9
35. Through its jurisprudence, the European Court of Human Rights emphasizes
that certain procedural safeguards must be in place during the imposition of solitary
confinement, for example, monitoring a prisoner’s physical well-being,9 particularly
where the individual is not in good health 10 and having access to judicial review. 11
36. The level of isolation imposed on an individual is essential to the European
Court of Human Rights’ assessment of whether instances of physical and mental
isolation constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
A prolonged absolute prohibition of visits from individuals from outside the prison
causes suffering “clearly exceeding the unavoidable level inherent in detention”. 12
However, where the individual can receive visitors and write letters, 13 have access
to television, books and newspapers and regular contact with prison staff 14 or visit
with clergy or lawyers on a regular basis, 15 isolation is “partial”, and the minimum
threshold of severity — which the European Court of Human Rights considers
necessary to find a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human
Rights — is not met. Nevertheless, the Court has emphasized that solitary
confinement, even where the isolation is only partial, cannot be imposed on a
prisoner indefinitely. 16
Inter-American System on Human Rights
37. The jurisprudence on solitary confinement within the Inter-American System
on Human Rights is more conclusive than within the bodies discussed above. Since
its earliest judgments, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has found that
certain elements of a prison regime and certain physical prison conditions in
themselves constitute cruel and inhuman treatment, and therefore violate article 5 of
the American Convention on Human Rights, which recognizes the right to the
integrity of the person. For example, the Court held that “prolonged isolation and
deprivation of communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment,
harmful to the psychological and moral integrity of the person and a violation of the

__________________
8

9
10

11
12

13

14

15

16

11-44570

Iorgov v. Bulgaria, Application No. 40653/98, European Court of Human Rights, para. 84
(2004); G.B. v. Bulgaria, Application No. 42346/98, European Court of Human Rights, para. 85
(2004).
A.B. v. Russia, Application No. 1439/06, European Court of Human Rights, para. 108 (2010).
Palushi v. Austria, Application No. 27900/04, European Court of Human Rights, paras. 72 and
73 (2009).
A.B. v. Russia, para. 111.
Onoufriou v. Cyprus, Application No. 24407/04, European Court of Human Rights, para. 80
(2010).
Ocalan v. Turkey, Application No. 46221/99, European Court of Human Rights, para. 196
(2005).
Rohde v. Denmark, Application No. 69332/01, European Court of Human Rights, para. 97
(2005).
Ramírez Sanchez v. France, Application No. 59450/00, European Court of Human Rights,
paras. 105, 106 and 135 (2006).
Ibid., para. 145.

11

A/66/268

right of any detainee to respect for his inherent dignity as a human being”. 17 The
Court has additionally addressed physical conditions of detention, asserting that
“isolation in a small cell, without ventilation or natural light, ... [and] restriction of
visiting rights ..., constitute forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”. 18
38. The Court has additionally recognized that solitary confinement results in
psychological and physical suffering that may contribute to treatment that
constitutes torture. In at least one case, the Court has identified the physical
conditions of solitary confinement, including “a small cell with no ventilation or
natural light”, and a prison regime where a detained individual “is held for 23 and a
half hours a day ..., [and] permitted to see his relatives only once a month, but could
have no physical contact with them”, when coupled with other forms of physical and
psychological aggression, in sum may constitute physical and psychological
torture. 19
39. In its analysis of solitary confinement, the Court has noted that even when
used in exceptional circumstances, procedural safeguards must be in place. For
example, “the State is obliged to ensure that the detainee enjoys the minimum and
non-derogable guarantees established in the [American] Convention and,
specifically, the right to question the lawfulness of the detention and the guarantee
of access to effective defense during his incarceration”. 20 Similarly, the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has consistently held that all forms
of disciplinary action taken against detained persons must comport with the norms
of due process and provide opportunity for judicial review. 21

E.

States’ rationale for the use of solitary confinement
40. The justifications provided by States for the use of solitary confinement fall
into five general categories:
(a) To punish an individual (as part of the judicially imposed sentence or as
part of a disciplinary regime);
(b)

To protect vulnerable individuals;

(c)

To facilitate prison management of certain individuals;

(d)

To protect or promote national security;

(e)

To facilitate pre-charge or pretrial investigations.

41. The imposition of solitary confinement as a part of an individual’s judicially
imposed sentence often arises in circumstances of particularly egregious crimes or
__________________
17

18

19

20

21

12

Velázquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C, No. 4,
para. 156 (1988).
Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C, No. 33, para. 58
(1997).
Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C, No. 69, paras. 62
and 104 (2000).
Suárez-Rosero v. Ecuador, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C, No. 35,
paras. 51-56 (1997).
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in
Mexico (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.100), para. 254 (2008).

11-44570

A/66/268

crimes against the State. 22 For instance, in some central European States,
individuals convicted and sentenced to capital punishment and to life imprisonment
serve their time in solitary confinement (A/64/215, para. 53). In other States, such as
in Mongolia, death sentences may be commuted to life sentences spent in solitary
confinement (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.4, para. 47). The use of solitary confinement as a
disciplinary measure within prisons is also well documented and is likely the most
pervasive rationale for the use of solitary confinement as a form of punishment.22
Disciplinary measures usually involve the violation of a prison rule. For instance, in
Nigeria detainees are punished with solitary confinement of up to three days for
disciplinary offences (A/HRC/7/3/Add.4, appendix I, para. 113). Similarly, in the
Abepura Prison in Indonesia, solitary confinement for up to eight days is used as a
disciplinary measure for persons who violate prison rules (A/HRC/7/3/Add.7,
appendix I, para. 37).
42. Solitary confinement is also used to separate vulnerable individuals, including
juveniles, persons with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
persons, for their own protection. They may be placed in solitary confinement at
their own request or at the discretion of prison officials. 23
43. State officials also use solitary confinement as a tool to manage certain prison
populations. Individuals determined to be dangerous, such as gang members, or at
high risk of escape may be placed in solitary confinement.23 Similarly, individuals
determined to be at risk of injury, such as sex offenders, informants, and former
correctional or law enforcement officers, are often allowed, or encouraged, to
choose voluntary solitary confinement in order to protect themselves from fellow
inmates. 24 Prisoners may also be placed in some form of solitary confinement in the
interests of prison management before, during or after transportation to and from
cells and detention facilities. 25 While the duration of solitary confinement when
used as a management tool may vary considerably, it is notable that the motivation
for its imposition is pragmatic rather than punitive.
44. Individuals determined to be terrorist suspects or national security risks are
often subjected to solitary confinement as well. For instance, in Equatorial Guinea a
section of the Black Beach Prison consisting of single cells is used for solitary
confinement of high security prisoners (A/HRC/13/39/Add.4, appendix I). Solitary
confinement can be also used as a coercive interrogation technique, and is often an
integral part of enforced disappearance or incommunicado detention (A/63/175,
annex). As noted within category (a) in paragraph 40 above, national security also
serves as a primary reason for the imposition of solitary confinement as a result of a
judicial sentence. For example, in China an individual sentenced for “unlawfully
supplying State secrets or intelligence to entities outside China” was allegedly held in
solitary confinement for two years of her eight-year sentence (E/CN.4/2006/6/
Add.6, appendix 2, para. 26).
45. States also use solitary confinement to isolate individuals during pre-charge or
pretrial detention. In some States, such as Denmark, holding individuals in solitary
__________________
22
23
24

25

11-44570

Shalev, op. cit., p. 25.
Shalev, op. cit., pp. 25 and 26.
Peter Scharff Smith, “Solitary Confinement: An introduction to the Istanbul Statement on the
Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement”, Journal on Rehabilitation of Torture Victims and
Prevention of Torture, vol. 18 (2008), p. 56.
Shalev, op. cit., p. 26.

13

A/66/268

confinement is a regular feature of pretrial detention (A/63/175, para. 78 (i)). The
purposes for the use of solitary confinement in pre-charge and pretrial detention vary
widely, and include preventing the intermingling of detainees to avoid demoralization
and collusion, and to apply pressure on detainees to elicit cooperation or extract a
confession. 26

F.

Conditions of solitary confinement
46. The administration of prisons and the conditions in which prisoners are held is
governed by prison regulations and national laws, as well as by international human
rights law. Fundamental norms that are binding by virtue of being treaty-based or
part of customary international law are supplemented and interpreted through the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by
the Economic and Social Council in 1957. Although not directly binding, the
Standard Minimum Rules are widely accepted as the universal norm for the humane
treatment of prisoners.
47. The particular conditions in which detainees are held in solitary confinement
vary between institutions and jurisdictions. Most, however, have a number of
physical and non-physical conditions (or a prison regime) in common.

1.

Physical conditions
48. The principal physical conditions relevant to solitary confinement are cell size,
presence of windows and light, and access to sanitary fixtures for personal hygiene.
In practice, solitary confinement cells typically share some common features,
including: location in a separate or remote part of the prison; small, or partially
covered windows; sealed air quality; stark appearance and dull colours; toughened
cardboard or other tamperproof furniture bolted to the floor; and small and barren
exercise cages or yards (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3, para. 47). In some jurisdictions,
prisoners in solitary confinement are held in leg irons and subjected to other
physical restraints (A/HRC/13/39/Add.4, para. 76 (f)).
49. There is no universal instrument that specifies a minimum acceptable cell size,
although domestic and regional jurisdictions have sometimes ruled on the matter.
According to the European Court of Human Rights in Ramírez Sanchez v. France, a
cell measuring 6.84 square metres is “large enough” for single occupancy. 27 The
Court did not elaborate on why such measures could be considered adequate; the
Special Rapporteur respectfully begs to differ, especially if the single cell should
also contain, at a minimum, toilet and washing facilities, bedding and a desk.
50. The presence of windows and light is also of critical importance to the
adequate treatment of detainees in solitary confinement. Under rule 11 of the
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, there should be sufficient
light to enable the detainee to work or read, and windows so constructed as to allow
airflow whether or not artificial ventilation is provided. However, State practice
reveals that this standard is often not met. For example, in Georgia, window-

__________________
26

27

14

Peter Scharff Smith, “Solitary Confinement: An introduction to the Istanbul Statement on the
Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement”, p. 41.
Ramírez Sanchez v. France, Application No. 59450/00, European Court of Human Rights,
para. 102 (2006).

11-44570

A/66/268

openings in solitary confinement cells were found to have steel sheets welded to the
outside bars, which restricted light and ventilation (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3, para. 47).
In Israel, solitary confinement cells are often lit with fluorescent bulbs as their only
source of light, and they have no source of fresh air. 28
51. Rules 12 and 13 of the Standard Minimum Rules stipulate that detention
facilities should provide sufficient sanitary fixtures to allow for the personal
hygiene of the detainee. Therefore, cells used for solitary confinement should
contain a lavatory and wash-basin within the cell. 29 In its 2006 report on Greece,
the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment observed that isolation cells in the Komotini Prison failed
to meet the necessary minimum standard for sanitary fixtures because detainees
were forced to use the toilet for a wash-basin as well. 30 Other environmental
factors, such as temperature, noise level, privacy, and soft materials for cell
furnishings may also be implicated in the solitary confinement setting.
2.

Prison regime
52. The principal aspects of a prison regime relevant to an assessment of the
conditions of solitary confinement include access to outdoor exercise and
programming, access to meaningful human contact within the prison, and contact
with the outside world. In accordance with rule 21 of the Standard Minimum Rules
for the Treatment of Prisoners, every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work
shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather
permits. Similarly, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
emphasizes that all prisoners without exception should be afforded the opportunity
to have one hour of open-air exercise per day. 31 However, State practice indicates
that these standards are not always observed. In Jordan, for example, a detainee was
allowed outside of his solitary confinement cell for only one hour per week
(A/HRC/4/33/Add.3, appendix, para. 21). In Poltrotsky v. Ukraine, the European
Court of Human Rights found that a lack of opportunity for outdoor exercise,
coupled with a lack of access to natural light, constitutes a violation of article 3 of
the European Convention on Human Rights. 32
53. Access to meaningful human contact within the prison and contact with the
outside world are also essential to the psychological health of detainees held in
solitary confinement, especially those held for prolonged periods of time. Within
prisons this contact could be with health professionals, prison guards or other
prisoners. Contact with the outside world could include visits, mail, and phone calls
from legal counsel, family and friends, and access to reading material, television or
radio. Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights grants
prisoners the right to family and correspondence. Additionally, the Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners provide for various external stimuli

__________________
28

29
30

31
32

11-44570

Solitary Confinement of Prisoners and Detainees in Israeli Prisons, Joint Project of Adalah,
Al Mezan (Gaza) and Physicians for Human Rights (Israel, June 2011).
Shalev, op. cit., p. 42.
Council of Europe, Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Report to the Government of
Greece on the visit to Greece carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 20 December 2006 (CPT/Inf
(2006)), p. 41.
Council of Europe, “CPT Standards” (CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 — Rev. 2010), sect. II, para. 48.
Poltrotsky v. Ukraine, p. 146 (European Court of Human Rights, 2006-V).

15

A/66/268

(articles 21 on exercise and sport; 37-39 on contact with the outside world; 40 on
books; 41 and 42 on religion; 71-76 on work; 77 and 78 on education and
recreation; and 79-81 on social relations and after-care).
3.

Social isolation
54. Solitary confinement reduces meaningful social contact to an absolute
minimum. The level of social stimulus that results is insufficient for the individual
to remain in a reasonable state of mental health. 33
55. Research shows that deprived of a sufficient level of social stimulation,
individuals soon become incapable of maintaining an adequate state of alertness and
attention to their environment. Indeed, even a few days of solitary confinement will
shift an individual’s brain activity towards an abnormal pattern characteristic of
stupor and delirium. 34 Advancements in new technologies have made it possible to
achieve indirect supervision and keep individuals under close surveillance with
almost no human interaction. The European Court of Human Rights has recognized
that “complete sensory isolation, coupled with total social isolation, can destroy the
personality and constitutes a form of inhuman treatment which cannot be justified
by the requirements of security or any other reason”. 35
56. According to the European Court of Human Rights, States should also take
steps to reduce the negative impact of solitary confinement. 36 Where the damaging
effects of solitary confinement on a particular individual are known, the regime
cannot continue. 37 The conditions of confinement are relevant in this respect,
because where conditions are beyond reproach, the Court considers it unlikely that
the minimum threshold of severity to find a violation of article 3 will be reached. 38
Routine examination by doctors can be a factor in determining that there was no
violation of article 3. 39

G.

Prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement
57. The use of prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement has increased in
various jurisdictions, especially in the context of the “war on terror” and “a threat to
national security”. Individuals subjected to either of these practices are in a sense in
a prison within a prison and thus suffer an extreme form of anxiety and exclusion,
which clearly supersede normal imprisonment. Owing to their isolation, prisoners
held in prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement can easily slip out of sight of

__________________
33

34

35

36
37
38

39

16

Peter Scharff Smith, “The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates”, Crime and Justice,
vol. 34 (2006), p. 449.
Stuart Grassian, “Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement”, Journal of Law and Policy,
vol. 22 (2006), p. 325.
Ilaşcu and others v. Moldova and Russia, Application No. 48787/99, European Court of Human
Rights (2004), para. 432.
Mathew v. Netherlands, Application No. 24919/03, para. 202.
G.B. v. Bulgaria, para. 85.
Valasinas v. Lithuania, Application No. 44558/98, European Court of Human Rights, para. 112
(2001); Ocalan v. Turkey, para. 193.
Rohde v. Denmark, para. 97.

11-44570

A/66/268

justice, and safeguarding their rights is therefore often difficult, even in States
where there is a strong adherence to rule of law. 40
58. When a State fails to uphold the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners during a short period of time of solitary confinement, there may be some
debate on whether the adverse effects amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment or torture. However, the longer the duration of solitary
confinement or the greater the uncertainty regarding the length of time, the greater
the risk of serious and irreparable harm to the inmate that may constitute cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or even torture.
59. The feeling of uncertainty when not informed of the length of solitary
confinement exacerbates the pain and suffering of the individuals who are subjected
to it. In some instances, individuals may be held indefinitely during pretrial
detention, increasing the risk of other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment or torture (CAT/C/DNK/CO/5, para. 14).
60. Most studies fail to specify the length of time after which solitary confinement
becomes prolonged. While the term may be undefined, detainees can be held in
solitary confinement from a few weeks to many years. For example, in Kazakhstan,
individuals can be held in solitary confinement for more than two months
(A/HRC/13/39/Add.3, para. 117). Some detainees have been held in solitary
confinement facilities for years, without any charge and without trial, and in secret
detention centres where isolation is used as an integral part of interrogation
practices. 41 In a joint report on the situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay,
experts found that although 30 days of isolation was the maximum period
permissible, some detainees were returned to isolation after very short breaks over a
period of up to 18 months (E/CN.4/2006/120, para. 53).
61. There is no international standard for the permitted maximum overall duration
of solitary confinement. In A.B. v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights held
that detaining an individual in solitary confinement for three years constituted a
violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 42 By contrast,
in the United States of America, it is reported that two prisoners have been held in
solitary confinement in a Louisiana prison for 40 years after failed attempts at
judicial appeal of the conditions of their confinement. 43 As explained in paragraph
26 above, the Special Rapporteur finds that solitary confinement exceeding 15 days
is prolonged.

H.

Psychological and physiological effects of solitary confinement
62. Negative health effects can occur after only a few days in solitary
confinement, and the health risks rise with each additional day spent in such
conditions. Experts who have examined the impact of solitary confinement have
found three common elements that are inherently present in solitary confinement —

__________________
40

41
42
43

11-44570

Peter Scharff Smith, “Solitary Confinement: An introduction to the Istanbul Statement on the
Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement”, p. 1.
Shalev, op. cit., p. 2.
A.B. v. Russia, Application No. 1439/06, European Court of Human Rights, para. 135 (2010).
“USA: The Cruel and Inhumane Treatment of Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace”, Amnesty
International (2001).

17

A/66/268

social isolation, minimal environmental stimulation and “minimal opportunity for
social interaction”. 44 Research further shows that solitary confinement appears to
cause “psychotic disturbances,” a syndrome that has been described as “prison
psychoses”. 45 Symptoms can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive
disturbances, perceptual distortions, paranoia and psychosis and self-harm (see
annex for a comprehensive list of symptoms).
63. Some individuals experience discrete symptoms while others experience a
“severe exacerbation of a previously existing mental condition or the appearance of
a mental illness where none had been observed before”. 46 Still, a significant number
of individuals will experience serious health problems regardless of the specific
conditions, regardless of time and place, and regardless of pre-existing personal
factors.

I.

Latent effects of solitary confinement
64. There is a lack of research into the latent effects of solitary confinement.
While the acute effects of solitary confinement generally recede after the period of
solitary confinement ends, some of the negative health effects are long term. The
minimal stimulation experienced during solitary confinement can lead to a decline
in brain activity in individuals after seven days. One study found that “up to seven
days, the [brain activity] decline is reversible, but if deprived over a long period this
may not be the case”. 47
65. Studies have found continued sleep disturbances, depression, anxiety, phobias,
emotional dependence, confusion, impaired memory and concentration long after
the release from isolation. Additionally, lasting personality changes often leave
individuals formerly held in solitary confinement socially impoverished and
withdrawn, subtly angry and fearful when forced into social interaction. 48
Intolerance of social interaction after a period of solitary confinement is a handicap
that often prevents individuals from successfully readjusting to life within the
broader prison population and severely impairs their capacity to reintegrate into
society when released from imprisonment. 49

J.

Vulnerable individuals

1.

Juveniles
66. United Nations treaty bodies consistently recommend that juvenile offenders,
children or minors should not be subjected to solitary confinement
(CAT/C/MAC/CO/4, para. 8; CAT/OP/PRY/1, para. 185; CRC/C/15/Add.151,
para. 41; and CRC/C/15/Add.232, para. 36 (a)). Juveniles are often held in solitary
confinement either as a disciplinary measure, or to separate them from the adult
inmate population, as international human rights law prohibits the intermingling of

__________________
44
45
46
47
48
49

18

Stuart Grassian, “Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement” (1993), p. 1.
Ibid., p. 8.
Ibid., p. 2.
Ibid., p. 20.
Shalev, op. cit., pp. 13 and 22.
Stuart Grassian, “Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement”, pp. 332 and 333.

11-44570

A/66/268

juvenile and adult prison populations. 50 Regrettably, solitary confinement as a form
of punishment of juvenile detainees has been prevalent in States such as Jamaica
(A/HRC/16/52/Add.3, para. 211), Paraguay (A/HRC/7/3/Add.3, appendix I,
para. 46) and Papua New Guinea (A/HRC/16/52/Add.5, appendix). In regard to
disciplinary measures, a report has indicated that solitary confinement does not
reduce violence among juvenile offenders detained in the youth prison. 51
2.

Persons with disabilities
67. Persons with disabilities are held in solitary confinement in some jurisdictions
as a substitute for proper medical or psychiatric care or owing to the lack of other
institutional housing options. These individuals may not necessarily pose danger to
others or to themselves, but they are vulnerable to abuse and often regarded as a
disturbance to other prisoners and prison staff. 52
68. Research has shown that with respect to mental disabilities, solitary
confinement often results in severe exacerbation of a previously existing mental
condition. 53 Prisoners with mental health issues deteriorate dramatically in
isolation. 54 The adverse effects of solitary confinement are especially significant for
persons with serious mental health problems which are usually characterized by
psychotic symptoms and/or significant functional impairments. 55 Some engage in
extreme acts of self-mutilation and even suicide.54

3.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
69. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals are often subjected to
solitary confinement as a form of “protective custody”. 56 Although segregation of
such individuals may be necessary for their safety, lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender status does not justify limitations on their social regime, e.g., access to
recreation, reading materials, legal counsel or medical doctors.

K.

When solitary confinement amounts to torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
70. Because of the absence of witnesses, solitary confinement increases the risk of
acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Given its severe adverse health effects, the use of solitary confinement itself can
amount to acts prohibited by article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and

__________________
50

51

52
53
54

55

56

11-44570

Article 37(c), Convention on the Rights of the Child; article 8(d), United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
Robert Wildeboer, “The Impact of Solitary Confinement in a Youth Prison”, Inside and Out
(Chicago, 2010).
Shalev, op. cit., p. 26.
Stuart Grassian, “Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement”; Shalev, op. cit., p. 10.
American Civil Liberties Union, “Abuse of the Human Rights of Prisoners in the United States:
Solitary Confinement” (2011).
Jeffrey L. Metzner, M.D., and Jamie Fellner, “Solitary Confinement and Mental Illness in U.S.
Prisons: A Challenge for Medical Ethics”, The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry
and the Law, vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 104-108 (2010).
Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center, letter to the Special Rapporteur on torture
dated 16 June 2011.

19

A/66/268

Political Rights, torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention against Torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment as defined in article 16 of the Convention.
71. The assessment of whether solitary confinement amounts to torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should take into consideration
all relevant circumstances on a case-by-case basis. These circumstances include the
purpose of the application of solitary confinement, the conditions, length and effects
of the treatment and, of course, the subjective conditions of each victim that make
him or her more or less vulnerable to those effects. In this section, the report
discusses a few circumstances where the use of solitary confinement constitutes
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
72. Solitary confinement, when used for the purpose of punishment, cannot be
justified for any reason, precisely because it imposes severe mental pain and
suffering beyond any reasonable retribution for criminal behaviour and thus
constitutes an act defined in article 1 or article 16 of the Convention against Torture,
and a breach of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This applies as well to situations in which solitary confinement is imposed as a
result of a breach of prison discipline, as long as the pain and suffering experienced
by the victim reaches the necessary severity.
73. While physical and social segregation may be necessary in some
circumstances during criminal investigations, the practice of solitary confinement
during pretrial detention creates a de facto situation of psychological pressure which
can influence detainees to make confessions or statements against others and
undermines the integrity of the investigation. When solitary confinement is used
intentionally during pretrial detention as a technique for the purpose of obtaining
information or a confession, it amounts to torture as defined in article 1 or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under article 16 of the Convention
against Torture, and to a breach of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.
74. Where the physical conditions of solitary confinement are so poor and the
regime so strict that they lead to severe mental and physical pain or suffering of
individuals who are subjected to the confinement, the conditions of solitary
confinement amount to torture or to cruel and inhuman treatment as defined in
articles 1 and 16 of the Convention, and constitute a breach of article 7 of the
Covenant.
75. The use of solitary confinement can be accepted only in exceptional
circumstances where its duration must be as short as possible and for a definite term
that is properly announced and communicated. Given the harmful effects of
indefinite solitary confinement, its potential use to extract information or confession
during pretrial detention, and the fact that uncertainty prevents the use of remedies
to challenge it, the Special Rapporteur finds that indefinite imposition of solitary
confinement violates the right to due process of the concerned individual (article 9
of the Covenant, articles 1 or 16 of the Convention, and article 7 of the Covenant).
76. The Special Rapporteur asserts that social isolation is contrary to article 10,
paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
states that “The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the
essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation” (General
Assembly resolution 2200 (XXI), annex). Long periods of isolation do not aid the

20

11-44570

A/66/268

rehabilitation or re-socialization of detainees (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.4, para. 48). The
adverse acute and latent psychological and physiological effects of prolonged
solitary confinement constitute severe mental pain or suffering. Thus the Special
Rapporteur concurs with the position taken by the Committee against Torture in its
General Comment No. 20 that prolonged solitary confinement amounts to acts
prohibited by article 7 of the Covenant, and consequently to an act as defined in
article 1 or article 16 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Special Rapporteur
reiterates that, in his view, any imposition of solitary confinement beyond 15 days
constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
depending on the circumstances. He calls on the international community to agree to
such a standard and to impose an absolute prohibition on solitary confinement
exceeding 15 consecutive days.
77. With respect to juveniles, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the
Preamble of the Convention on the Rights of the Child state that, given their
physical and mental immaturity, juveniles need special safeguards and care,
including appropriate legal protection. Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of
the Child (General Assembly resolution 44/25) requires States Parties to “take all
appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence …” In its General Comment
No. 8, the Committee on the Rights of the Child indicated that “There is no
ambiguity: ‘all forms of physical or mental violence’ does not leave room for any
level of legalized violence against children” (CRC/C/GC/8, para. 18). Paragraph 67
of the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their
Liberty, adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 45/113 of 14 December
1990, states that “All disciplinary measures constituting cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment shall be strictly prohibited, including ... solitary confinement or
any other punishment that may compromise the physical or mental health of the
juvenile concerned” (see also CRC/C/GC/10, para. 89). Thus the Special Rapporteur
holds the view that the imposition of solitary confinement, of any duration, on
juveniles is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and violates article 7 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 16 of the
Convention against Torture.
78. The right of persons with mental disabilities to be treated with humanity and
with respect for the inherent dignity guaranteed under article 10 of the Covenant
should be interpreted in light of the Principles for the Protection of Persons with
Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care, adopted by the
General Assembly on 17 December 1991 (resolution 46/119, annex). Given their
diminished mental capacity and that solitary confinement often results in severe
exacerbation of a previously existing mental condition, the Special Rapporteur
believes that its imposition, of any duration, on persons with mental disabilities is
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and violates article 7 of the Covenant and
article 16 of the Convention.

IV. Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions
79. The Special Rapporteur stresses that solitary confinement is a harsh
measure which may cause serious psychological and physiological adverse

11-44570

21

A/66/268

effects on individuals regardless of their specific conditions. He finds solitary
confinement to be contrary to one of the essential aims of the penitentiary
system, which is to rehabilitate offenders and facilitate their reintegration into
society. The Special Rapporteur defines prolonged solitary confinement as any
period of solitary confinement in excess of 15 days.
80. Depending on the specific reason for its application, conditions, length,
effects and other circumstances, solitary confinement can amount to a breach
of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and to
an act defined in article 1 or article 16 of the Convention against Torture. In
addition, the use of solitary confinement increases the risk that acts of torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment will go
undetected and unchallenged.
81. Considering the severe mental pain or suffering solitary confinement may
cause when used as a punishment, during pretrial detention, indefinitely or for
a prolonged period, for juveniles or persons with mental disabilities, it can
amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The Special Rapporteur is of the view that where the physical conditions and
the prison regime of solitary confinement fail to respect the inherent dignity of
the human person and cause severe mental and physical pain or suffering, it
amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Recommendations
82. The Special Rapporteur calls upon States to respect and protect the rights
of persons deprived of liberty while maintaining security and order in places of
detention. He recommends that States conduct regular reviews of the system of
solitary confinement. In this context, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that
States should refer to the Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary
Confinement as a useful tool in efforts to promote the respect and protection of
the rights of detainees.
83. The Special Rapporteur calls upon States to ensure that all persons
deprived of their liberty are treated with humanity and respect for the inherent
dignity of the human person as protected by article 10, paragraph 1, of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Special Rapporteur
refers to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and
recommends that States increase the level of psychological, meaningful social
contact for detainees while in solitary confinement.
84. The Special Rapporteur urges States to prohibit the imposition of solitary
confinement as punishment — either as a part of a judicially imposed sentence
or a disciplinary measure. He recommends that States develop and implement
alternative disciplinary sanctions to avoid the use of solitary confinement.
85. States should take necessary steps to put an end to the practice of solitary
confinement in pretrial detention. The use of solitary confinement as an
extortion technique during pretrial detention should be abolished. States should
adopt effective measures at the pretrial stage to improve the efficiency of
investigation and introduce alternative control measures in order to segregate
individuals, protect ongoing investigations, and avoid detainee collusion.

22

11-44570

A/66/268

86. States should abolish the use of solitary confinement for juveniles and
persons with mental disabilities. Regarding disciplinary measures for juveniles,
the Special Rapporteur recommends that States should take other measures
that do not involve the use of solitary confinement. In regard to the use of
solitary confinement for persons with mental disabilities, the Special
Rapporteur emphasizes that physical segregation of such persons may be
necessary in some cases for their own safety, but solitary confinement should be
strictly prohibited.
87.

Indefinite solitary confinement should be abolished.

88. It is clear that short-term solitary confinement can amount to torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; it can, however, be a
legitimate device in other circumstances, provided that adequate safeguards are
in place. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, prolonged solitary
confinement, in excess of 15 days, should be subject to an absolute prohibition.
89. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that solitary confinement should be
used only in very exceptional circumstances, as a last resort, for as short a time
as possible. He emphasizes that when solitary confinement is used in
exceptional circumstances, minimum procedural safeguards must be followed.
These safeguards reduce the chances that the use of solitary confinement will
be arbitrary or excessive, as in the case of prolonged or indefinite confinement.
They are all the more important in circumstances of detention where due
process protections are often limited, as in administrative immigration
detention. Minimum procedural safeguards should be interpreted in a manner
that provides the greatest possible protection of the rights of detained
individuals. In this context, the Special Rapporteur urges States to apply the
following guiding principles and procedural safeguards.
Guiding principles
90. Throughout the period of detention, the physical conditions and prison
regime of the solitary confinement, and in particular the duration of
confinement, must be proportional to the severity of the criminal or
disciplinary infraction for which solitary confinement is imposed.
91. The physical conditions and prison regime of solitary confinement must be
imposed only as a last resort where less restrictive measures could not achieve
the intended disciplinary goals.
92. Solitary confinement must never be imposed or allowed to continue except
where there is an affirmative determination that it will not result in severe pain
or suffering, whether physical or mental, giving rise to acts as defined in article 1
or article 16 of the Convention against Torture.
93. All assessments and decisions taken with respect to the imposition of
solitary confinement must be clearly documented and readily available to the
detained persons and their legal counsel. This includes the identity and title of
the authority imposing solitary confinement, the source of his or her legal
attributes to impose it, a statement of underlying justification for its imposition,
its duration, the reasons for which solitary confinement is determined to be
appropriate in accordance with the detained person’s mental and physical
health, the reasons for which solitary confinement is determined to be

11-44570

23

A/66/268

proportional to the infraction, reports from regular review of the justification
for solitary confinement, and medical assessments of the detained person’s
mental and physical health.
Internal safeguards
94. From the moment that solitary confinement is imposed, through all stages
of its review and decisions of extension or termination, the justification and
duration of the solitary confinement should be recorded and made known to
the detained person. Additionally, the detained person should be informed of
what he or she must do to be removed from solitary confinement. In accordance
with rule 35 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners,
the detained person must receive this information in plain language that he or
she understands. This information must additionally be provided to any legal
representative of the detained person.
95. A documented system of regular review of the justification for the
imposition of solitary confinement should be in place. The review should be
conducted in good faith and carried out by an independent body. Any change in
the factors that justified the imposition of solitary confinement should
immediately trigger a review of the detained person’s solitary confinement. All
review processes must be documented.
96. Persons held in solitary confinement must be provided with a genuine
opportunity to challenge both the nature of their confinement and its
underlying justification through a process of administrative review. At the
outset of the imposition of solitary confinement, detained persons must be
informed of their alleged criminal or disciplinary infraction for which solitary
confinement is being imposed and must immediately have an opportunity to
challenge the reasons for their detention. Following the imposition of solitary
confinement, detained persons must have the opportunity to file a complaint to
prison management through an internal or administrative complaints system.
97. There shall be no limitations imposed on the request or complaint, such as
requiring evidence of both mental or emotional suffering and physical
suffering. Prison officials have an obligation to address all requests or
complaints promptly, informing the detained person of the outcome. All
internal administrative findings must be subject to external appeal through
judicial processes.
External safeguards
98. Detained persons held in solitary confinement must be afforded genuine
opportunities to challenge both the nature of their confinement and its
underlying justification through the courts of law. This requires a right to
appeal all final decisions by prison authorities and administrative bodies to an
independent judicial body empowered to review both the legality of the nature
of the confinement and its underlying justification. Thereafter, detained
persons must have the opportunity to appeal these judgements to the highest
authority in the State and, after exhaustion of domestic remedies, seek review
by regional or universal human rights bodies.

24

11-44570

A/66/268

99. Individuals must have free access to competent legal counsel throughout
the period in which they are held in solitary confinement. Where necessary to
facilitate complete and open communication between a detainee and his or her
legal counsel, access to an interpreter must be provided.
100. There should be a documented system of regular monitoring and review of
the inmate’s physical and mental condition by qualified medical personnel,
both at the initiation of solitary confinement and on a daily basis throughout
the period in which the detained person remains in solitary confinement, as
required by rule 32, paragraph 3, of the Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners. Medical personnel monitoring detained persons should
have specialized training in psychological assessment and/or the support of
specialists in psychology. Additionally, medical personnel must be independent
and accountable to an authority outside of the prison administration.
Preferably, they should belong to the general national health structure. Any
deterioration of the inmate’s mental or physical condition should trigger a
presumption that the conditions of confinement are excessive and activate an
immediate review.
101. Medical personnel should additionally inspect the physical conditions of
the inmate’s confinement in accordance with article 26 of the Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Relevant considerations
include the level of hygiene and cleanliness of the facility and the inmate,
heating, lighting and ventilation of the cell, suitability of clothing and bedding,
adequate supply of food and water and observance of the rules concerning
physical exercise.

11-44570

25

A/66/268

Annex
Effects of solitary confinement
Many symptoms may present themselves in individuals held in solitary
confinement, both concurrent with their solitary confinement and after the period of
solitary confinement has terminated. The following list prepared by Dr. Sharon
Shaleva demonstrates a range of possible symptoms.
Anxiety, ranging from feelings of tension to full-blown panic attacks
• Persistent low level of stress
• Irritability or anxiousness
• Fear of impending death
• Panic attacks
Depression, varying from low mood to clinical depression
• Emotional flatness/blunting — loss of ability to have any “feelings”
• Mood swings
• Hopelessness
• Social withdrawal; loss of initiation of activity or ideas; apathy; lethargy
• Major depression
Anger, ranging from irritability to full-blown rage
• Irritability and hostility
• Poor impulse control
• Outbursts of physical and verbal violence against others, self and objects
• Unprovoked anger, sometimes manifested as rage
Cognitive disturbances, ranging from lack of concentration to confused state
• Short attention span
• Poor concentration
• Poor memory
• Confused thought processes; disorientation
Perceptual distortions, ranging from hypersensitivity to hallucinations
• Hypersensitivity to noises and smells
• Distortions of sensation (e.g., walls closing in)
• Disorientation in time and space

a

26

Sharon Shalev, A Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement (London, Mannheim Centre for
Criminology, 2008), pp. 15-17; also Peter Scharff Smith, “The effects of solitary confinement on
prison inmates: a brief history and review of the literature”, Crime and Justice, vol. 34 (2006),
p. 441.

11-44570

A/66/268

• Depersonalization/derealization
• Hallucinations affecting all five senses (e.g., hallucinations of objects or
people appearing in the cell, or hearing voices when no one is actually
speaking)
Paranoia and psychosis, ranging from obsessional thoughts to full-blown psychosis
• Recurrent and persistent thoughts (ruminations), often of a violent and
vengeful character (e.g., directed against prison staff)
• Paranoid ideas — often persecutory
• Psychotic episodes or states: psychotic depression, schizophrenia
Self-harm, self-directed aggression
• Self-mutilation and cutting
• Suicide attempts

11-44570

27