CAT/C/62/D/672/2015
noted that the violation had occurred 13 years before the judgment, a lapse of time that, in
its view, made calculating the amount of the award problematic. The Court noted, however,
that the complainant would have had a case for a small award had he followed the
procedure for requesting compensation set out in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act
2005. It noted that the complainant had failed to apply for compensation under that
complaints mechanism — that is, by making a complaint to the Ombudsman — and that the
Court was therefore unable to award him damages under section 13 of the Act. 3 The
complainant lodged an application for leave to appeal the decision not to award him
damages before the Supreme Court. That application was dismissed on 19 February 2014.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant notes that the imposition of a 21-day period of solitary
confinement was a clear breach of the State party’s domestic legislation. He argues that the
sanction amounted to prolonged solitary confinement. 4 The complainant notes that the
Court of Appeal found that the sanction was in breach of his rights under article 23 (5) of
the Bill of Rights Act and that he had not been treated with humanity or respect for his
inherent dignity. He argues that, in placing a mentally ill and vulnerable prisoner in solitary
confinement for longer than the statutory maximum period, the State party violated his
rights under article 16 of the Convention. He submits that solitary confinement should be
used only in exceptional circumstances and that no such circumstances were present in his
case. He claims that, at the time, he was suffering from depression and drug addiction and
that he should not have been placed in solitary confinement at all. He argues that his
confinement for a period in excess of the statutory maximum period heightens the
seriousness of the breach constituted by his placement in cell confinement in the first place.
He claims that while he was in confinement he experienced physical and mental suffering
that amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment.
3.2
The complainant alleges that the State party has violated his rights under article 14
of the Convention. He notes that, although the Court of Appeal found that he had not been
treated with humanity and dignity, it did not award him damages. He refers to the
Committee’s general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14, according
to which article 14 is applicable to all victims of torture and acts of cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. The complainant argues that one reason that the Court
of Appeal did not award him damages was that, at the time of its judgment, the violation
had occurred more than a decade earlier. The complainant refers to general comment No. 3
and argues that the State party has an obligation to provide redress to victims of torture or
ill-treatment, regardless of when the violation occurred.
3.3
The complainant notes that the other reason that the Court of Appeal did not award
damages was that he had not made a claim under the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act.
He argues that the Act itself is contrary to the purpose of the Convention, as damages may
be awarded under the Act only if a court or tribunal is satisfied that the prisoner has first
made reasonable use of available internal and external complaints mechanisms. 5 He also
3
4
5
Section 13 (1) of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act reads as follows:
(1)
No court or tribunal may, in proceedings to which this subpart applies, award any
compensation sought by a specified claim unless satisfied that —
(a)
the plaintiff has made reasonable use of all of the specified internal and
external complaints mechanisms reasonably available to him or her to complain about the act
or omission on which the claim is based, but has not obtained in relation to that act or
omission redress that the court or Tribunal considers effective; and
(b)
another remedy, or a combination of other remedies, cannot provide, in
relation to the act or omission on which the claim is based, redress that the court or Tribunal
considers effective.
The complainant refers to A/66/268, para. 26, in which prolonged solitary confinement is defined as
any period of solitary confinement in excess of 15 days. It is noted 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.
Under section 7 of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, specified internal and external complaint
mechanisms are defined as the relevant prison’s internal complaints system; investigation of a
complaint by a person appointed as an inspector of corrections; and in relation only to a matter that is
3