CAT/C/62/D/672/2015 recommendation that solitary confinement and seclusion should be used as measures of last resort, for as short a time as possible, under strict supervision and with the possibility of judicial review.14 In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant was placed in solitary confinement for 21 days, a period that is indisputably longer than the statutory maximum in the State party. The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that he was confined to his cell for 23 hours a day during the period he spent in solitary confinement, with one hour a day for exercise and to shower. He had no access to radio or television, although he did have access to reading material. He was not allowed to make telephone calls or receive visitors. The Committee further notes the complainant’s claim that he was particularly vulnerable at the time, as he suffered from chronic depression and drug addiction, and that the confinement caused him mental anguish. The Committee acknowledges the State party’s argument that the complainant was placed in cell confinement was at his own request, that the conditions were humane, that the complainant made no complaints about the conditions of confinement at the time, that he was supervised by custodial and health staff during the period of cell confinement, that he was entitled to send and receive mail and had access to reading material and that the cell he was held in had essentially the same features in terms of windows, light and fittings as the cell he was otherwise held in. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party’s argument that the cell confinement was imposed at the complainant’s own request was found irrelevant by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that it was the responsibility of the visiting justice to ensure that the sanction imposed did not exceed the statutory maximum and that it could be safely be imposed. The Court found that what was known about the complainant’s addiction and mental condition should have underlined the potentially harmful effects of an excessive period of cell confinement on his mental well-being. The Committee further notes the complainant’s assertion that the sanction caused him mental suffering and affected him physically. The Committee finds that, in view of the complainant’s chronic depression, which was known to the authorities, and drug addiction, the solitary confinement that he was subjected to and the length of time for which he was subjected to it were not proportionate to the objective pursued. The Committee therefore finds that the solitary confinement imposed on the complainant amounted to a violation of his rights under article 16 of the Convention. 7.4 The Committee notes that the complainant has also claimed that the failure of the State party’s courts to award him compensation constituted a violation of his rights under article 14. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 3 and notes that article 14 is applicable to all victims of torture and ill-treatment. The Committee further recalls that article 14 not only recognizes the right to fair and adequate compensation but also requires States parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture or ill-treatment obtains redress. The Committee considers that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation of the victim and measures to guarantee that there is no recurrence of the violations, with the circumstances of each case always borne in mind.15 The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant, alleging that his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act had been violated and seeking damages for the violation, brought a civil suit before the domestic courts. The Court of Appeal was of the view that the complainant had a strong case for a small award but was unable to award damages under the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, as the complainant had not followed the complaints procedure set out in the Act, which required filing a complaint with the Ombudsman’s Office. The complainant contends that the requirement is a discriminatory obstacle to compensation; however, in the light of his withdrawal of his request for an interview with the Ombudsman, the Committee finds that, in the circumstances of the case, requiring the complainant to exhaust the avenues for complaint provided for in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act did not constitute a denial of his enforceable right to compensation or amount to a violation of his rights under the Convention. The Committee therefore does not find a violation of the complainant’s rights under article 14 of the Convention. 14 15 8 See, for example, CAT/C/NZL/CO/6. See Saadia Ali v. Tunisia (CAT/C/41/D/291/2006), para. 15.8.