–2–
As regards more specifically the solitary confinement of juveniles, a practice concerning
which the CPT has particularly strong reservations, reference should also be made to the comments
made by the Committee in its 18th General Report.2
This section does not apply to the isolation of prisoners for medical reasons, as the grounds
for such a measure are of a fundamentally different nature.
The principles involved
55.
Solitary confinement further restricts the already highly limited rights of people deprived of
their liberty. The extra restrictions involved are not inherent in the fact of imprisonment and thus
have to be separately justified. In order to test whether any particular imposition of the measure is
justified, it is appropriate to apply the traditional tests enshrined in the provisions of the European
Convention on Human Rights and developed by the case-law of the European Court of Human
Rights. The simple mnemonic PLANN summarises these tests.
(a)
Proportionate: any further restriction of a prisoner’s rights must be linked to the actual or
potential harm the prisoner has caused or will cause by his or her actions (or the potential harm to
which he/she is exposed) in the prison setting. Given that solitary confinement is a serious
restriction of a prisoner’s rights which involves inherent risks to the prisoner, the level of actual or
potential harm must be at least equally serious and uniquely capable of being addressed by this
means. This is reflected, for example, in most countries having solitary confinement as a sanction
only for the most serious disciplinary offences, but the principle must be respected in all uses of the
measure. The longer the measure is continued, the stronger must be the reason for it and the more
must be done to ensure that it achieves its purpose.
(b)
Lawful: provision must be made in domestic law for each kind of solitary confinement
which is permitted in a country, and this provision must be reasonable. It must be communicated in
a comprehensible form to everyone who may be subject to it. The law should specify the precise
circumstances in which each form of solitary confinement can be imposed, the persons who may
impose it, the procedures to be followed by those persons, the right of the prisoner affected to make
representations as part of the procedure, the requirement to give the prisoner the fullest possible
reasons for the decision (it being understood that there might in certain cases be reasonable
justification for withholding specific details on security-related grounds or in order to protect the
interests of third parties), the frequency and procedure of reviews of the decision and the procedures
for appealing against the decision. The regime for each type of solitary confinement should be
established by law, with each of the regimes clearly differentiated from each other.
(c)
Accountable: full records should be maintained of all decisions to impose solitary
confinement and of all reviews of the decisions. These records should evidence all the factors which
have been taken into account and the information on which they were based. There should also be a
record of the prisoner’s input or refusal to contribute to the decision-making process. Further, full
records should be kept of all interactions with staff while the prisoner is in solitary confinement,
including attempts by staff to engage with the prisoner and the prisoner’s response.
(d)
Necessary: the rule that only restrictions necessary for the safe and orderly confinement of
the prisoner and the requirements of justice are permitted applies equally to prisoners undergoing
solitary confinement. Accordingly, during solitary confinement there should, for example, be no
automatic withdrawal of rights to visits, telephone calls and correspondence or of access to
resources normally available to prisoners (such as reading materials). Equally, the regime should be
flexible enough to permit relaxation of any restriction which is not necessary in individual cases.
2
See CPT/Inf (2008) 25, paragraph 26.