-41 need to take in consideration the changes in the reasons for the application of the regime and the effects of the application of such a regime on the isolated detainee; moreover, the authorities should be in a position to adjust the regime to the individual security needs of the detainee, and to reduce the negative impact of isolation.129 The CPT is also particularly concerned with prisoners who have caused, or are judged likely to cause, serious harm to others or who present a very serious risk to the safety or security of the prison. These detainees are often placed in a kind of solitary confinement that the CPT calls “administrative”. The CPT is greatly concerned with this kind of isolation since it is potentially the longest lasting type of solitary confinement and often the one with the fewest procedural safeguards. The time may vary from as short as a few hours or for as long as a period of years depending on the danger posed by the detainee. For these reasons, it recommends stringent controls, such as: the authorisation of the measure to be done only by the most senior member of the staff, a scrupulous reporting mechanism to be in place, as well as particular care from the medical staff. Solitary confinement should be terminated as soon as the reason for the imposition of the measure has been resolved. In the case of the imposition of a longer measure, efforts should be made to achieve the reintegration of the detainee in the general prison population through an individualised plan.130 The path for the release of a detainee from solitary confinement needs to start from the day he is put in solitary confinement. When the measure ends, the detainee needs to debrief with prison staff on the reasons why he was isolated. Interviews with detainees and staff allow the NPM to verify if this procedure takes place.131 The 2020 EPR address the isolation of “dangerous detainees” with a new approach. In fact, they state that if a detainee is separated from the general prison population (Rule 53.A and following) for special high security 129. European Court of Human Rights, Case of Horych v. Poland, §102. European Court of Human Rights, Case of Piechowicz v. Poland, Application no. 20071/07, 17 April 2012, §177. 130. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, 2011, §§56-61. 131. Alan Mitchell, Working towards harmonized detention in Europe – the role of NPM (NPM standards), Rome seminar on solitary confinement, Rome, via IV Novembre 149, 27-28 January 2020. Monitoring Solitary Confinement in Prison