prisoner is held and the degree of human contact he is afforded whilst in solitary confinement will be subjected to particularly close scrutiny. Where, in the Court’s view, there are compelling reasons to hold a prisoner in separation from other prisoners, and the physical conditions of confinement are relatively comfortable, provisions are good and the extent of human contact is such that it is arguable whether the prisoner is really isolated, then case law suggests the Court is less likely to find a breach of the Convention69. • • The placement of a pre-trial detainee in solitary confinement for just under a year was found not to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment because although “a period of such a length may give rise to concern because of the risk of harmful effects upon mental health” the Court considered that the extent of social isolation to which he was subjected did not reach the necessary threshold and while “he was totally excluded from association with other inmates ... during the day he had regular contact with prison staff, [and] in addition, every week he received lessons in English and French from the prison teacher and he visited the prison chaplain. Also, every week he received a visit from his counsel. Furthermore, during the segregation period in solitary confinement the applicant had contact twelve times with a welfare worker; and he was attended to thirty-two times by a physiotherapist, twenty-seven times by a doctor; and forty-three times by a nurse. Visits from the applicant’s family and friends were allowed under supervision”. The Court also noted that the physical conditions of detention were adequate as the detainee was held in a cell measuring eight square meters equipped with a television set, and had access to newspapers (Rhode v. Denmark, Judgement of 21/7/2005, pars. 97-98). The Court found that a regime of strict solitary confinement (the prisoner was held alone in his cell for 23 hours a day and was only allowed to mingle with other prisoners for one hour during a daily walk) imposed on a former death row prisoner for over three years, and the material conditions in which he was held (cell measuring 2 by 3 metres with a small window which did not allow sufficient light or fresh air, a heating system which was covered by a layer of bricks and illumination by only one 60-Watt electric bulb which was insufficient for reading) must have “caused him suffering exceeding the unavoidable level inherent in detention” and constituted inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR (Iorgov v. Bulgaria, Judgement of 11/3/2004). In sum, the extreme nature of solitary confinement and its potential health effects give rise to special human rights concerns, and its use is subjected to close scrutiny by the courts and monitoring bodies. In particular, the physical conditions in which prisoners are held, the regime provisions they enjoy and the degree of human contact they have whilst isolated will be assessed. Although the human rights view is that solitary confinement is an undesirable prison practice, its use is not prohibited per se. Rather, the practice will be assessed on a case by case basis to determine whether it has violated the prohibition against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 52 Sourcebook on solitary confinement: Design, physical conditions and regime in solitary confinement units