CAT/C/CAN/CO/7
should be conducted only when absolutely necessary and should be performed in
private by an appropriately trained staff member of the same sex as the inmate.
Search and admission procedures for visitors should not be degrading and should be
subject, at a minimum, to the same rules as those applied to inmates (see rules 50–53
and 60 of the Nelson Mandela Rules).
Solitary confinement
14.
The Committee is concerned at the continued use of prolonged and indefinite
solitary confinement, in the form of disciplinary and administrative segregation. Pursuant to
section 31 (3) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, an inmate may be placed in
involuntary administrative segregation at the discretion of the institutional head, as a means
of preventing altercations, harm or interference with internal investigations. The Committee
considers that such regulations give rise to issues of interpretation, especially with regard to
the distinction between cases that would lead to involuntary administrative segregation and
disciplinary segregation. Furthermore, the Act does not specify the maximum length of
time that an offender can be held in administrative segregation. Other information before
the Committee indicates that the use of administrative segregation disproportionally affects
indigenous inmates, especially women, and black inmates. It also notes with concern that
solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure may be imposed for up to 30 days for one
offence, or 45 days for multiple offences, with or without restrictions on visits with family,
friends and other persons from outside the penitentiary (sect. 44 (1) (f) of the Act). The
Committee appreciates the explanations provided by the State party’s delegation regarding
the content and current status of Bill C-83, which would eliminate administrative and
disciplinary segregation in the federal correctional system, and would establish a new
model for correctional interventions called “structured intervention units”, in which inmates
would be kept in social isolation for up to 20 hours a day. The Committee notes, however,
that the proposed regime gives wide discretion to the head of the detention facility in
imposing isolation, does not provide for a maximum length of stay in the units, does not
prohibit the placement of inmates with psychosocial disabilities in the units and does not
contain measures to limit disproportionate impacts on indigenous inmates, women or other
prisoners with special needs, and that there is no provision requiring independent external
review and oversight (arts. 11 and 16).
15.
The State party should ensure that solitary confinement, in both federal and
provincial correctional facilities, is used only in exceptional cases as a last resort, for
as short a time as possible (no more than 15 consecutive days) and subject to
independent review, and only pursuant to the authorization by a competent authority,
in accordance with rule 45 (a) of the Nelson Mandela Rules. It should also ensure that
administrative segregation is used as a preventive measure only. The Committee
wishes to draw the State party’s attention to rule 45 (2) of the Nelson Mandela Rules,
under which solitary confinement should be prohibited in the case of prisoners with
mental or physical disabilities when their conditions would be exacerbated by such
measures. In addition, rule 43 (3) of the Nelson Mandela Rules provides that
disciplinary sanctions or restrictive measures must not include the prohibition of
family contact and that the means of family contact may only be restricted for a
limited time period and as strictly required for the maintenance of security and order.
Internal prison complaint mechanisms
16.
The Committee is concerned at the fact that the State party has not furnished
complete information on the number of complaints of torture and ill-treatment submitted
under existing prison complaints mechanisms, such as the Correctional Service of Canada’s
offender complaint and grievance process and the Office of the Correctional Investigator,
during the period examined. It also regrets the lack of detailed information on the results of
those investigations, whether proceedings were initiated at the penal and/or disciplinary
levels, and their outcomes. In addition, the Committee is concerned at reports describing
the Correctional Service of Canada’s offender complaint and grievance process as slow,
complex and dysfunctional (arts. 2, 11 and 16).
4