Notes 56 U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991; Mukong v. Cameroon (August 10, 1994). 57 Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1998; Buchanan et al. 1988; Fairweather, 2000. 58 Poltrotsky v Ukraine, 146 ECHR 2003-V; See also judgements in the cases of Kuznetsov; Nazarenko; Dankevich; Aliev; Kokhlich v Ukraine, judgments of 29 April 2003, ECHR 2003-V. 59 Moyer, 1975:58-60; Fairweather 2000:34. The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Clinical Practice Guidelines propose that staff working with the mentally ill should “Encourage and provide privacy for visits from friends and relatives” as good practice in preventing violence (1998:59). 60 Management of imminent violence, Royal College of Psychiatrists OP41 (1998). 61 Fairweather, 2000; Bottoms, 1999:243-245; Buchanan et al., 1988:51-54 62 Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, 92, ECHR 2000-XI 63 Ensslin, Baader and Raspe v. FRG, DR14 (1978) at Para. 109. 64 Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, Judgement of 29 July 1988, Series C No.4 at par. 156 65 UN Human Rights Committee (2001) A/56/156. November 3rd, 2000, session. 66 UN Committee Against Torture (2001) paragraphs 95(g) and 186 respectively. 67 Ensslin, Baader and Raspe v FRG 14 DR 64 (1978). 68 McFeeley and Others v. the UK, no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, DR 20 69 The placement of a prisoner, Ilich Ramirez (‘Carlos the Jackal’), who, at the time, “was considered to be the most dangerous terrorist in the world”, in solitary confinement for more than eight years was found not to violate Article 3. In reaching its decision, the Court took account of the relatively comfortable conditions of his detention (his cell measured 6.84 sq. meters, was equipped with a toilet and washing facilities and had a window which provided natural light. He also had access to a television, newspapers and books), the fact that he was allowed out of his cell two hours daily for outdoor exercise and one hour in a gym, had frequent contact with people from outside the prison (he was visited by a doctor twice a week, by a cleric once a month, and frequently by his 58 lawyers, including 640 times in a period of five years by one of his lawyers, whom he later married), and, by his own testament, was in good physical and mental health. The Court also noted that he was later removed to a normal prison location, whilst reaffirming that in any case, solitary confinement should not be imposed on the prisoner indefinitely (Ramirez v. France, Judgement of 27/1/2005). Sourcebook on solitary confinement: Design, physical conditions and regime in solitary confinement units 55