4.4 H  uman rights case law regarding regime and physical conditions in segregation units States have a duty to ensure that prisoners are “detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured62”. Where these fall below acceptable standards, prison conditions may amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of international law. Human rights bodies pay particular attention to the use of solitary confinement which, as the previous chapter noted, is viewed as an extreme prison practice, which should only be used in exceptional cases and then for the shortest duration possible. The ECtHR has stated that “complete sensory isolation coupled with complete social isolation can no doubt destroy the personality63” and would constitute treatment in violation of the absolute prohibition on torture, inhuman or degrading treatment enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Inter American Court of Human Rights has similarly stated in several cases that prolonged solitary confinement, in itself, may violate Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights: “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 right of any detainee to respect for his inherent dignity as a human being. Such treatment, therefore, violates Article 5 of the Convention...”64. Finally, the UN Human Rights Committee criticised “... the practice of solitary confinement which affected the physical and mental health of persons deprived of freedom and which amounted to a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”65. In two separate cases brought against Uruguay, the Human Rights Committee found that holding a detainee for one month in a cell where “rainwater filtered in and one lives in the midst of human excrement” violated Article 10(1) of the ICCPR but not Article 7, whilst holding a detainee for one month in a small windowless cell where artificial light is left on 24 hours a day violated both Articles 10(1) and 7 of the ICCPR (UN Human Rights Committee, 1990, CCPR/C/OP/2). The UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) has found a violation of the prohibition against inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in several cases involving the use of solitary confinement. For example, it found that isolation in cold and damp punishment cells measuring 1.5x2 metres without proper bedding or sanitation in Bolivia was “tantamount to torture”, and the strict isolation in sound-proof cells of political prisoners in high security prisons in Peru amounted to torture66. But solitary confinement may also constitute inhuman and degrading treatment when physical conditions are not so clearly below internationally established standards. When considering whether solitary confinement constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment in any one case, the courts and monitoring bodies will assess the surrounding circumstances, including: the particular conditions of confinement, the stringency of the measure, its duration, and whether the prisoner had minimal possibilities for human contact67. The objective pursued by the measure and its effects on the individual concerned will also be assessed68. As some of the cases below, drawn from judgements made by the ECtHR, demonstrate, both the physical conditions in which the Sourcebook on solitary confinement: Design, physical conditions and regime in solitary confinement units 51