–5– Minimum standards vs. inhuman and degrading treatment: the need to differentiate 19. The European Court of Human Rights is approached with an ever-increasing number of complaints from prisoners who allege that they are detained in inhuman or degrading conditions, having to share cells with large numbers of fellow-inmates, which leaves them with very little living space. The Court, in its judgments, is obliged to decide whether or not the holding of prisoners in cells offering a very limited living space per person (usually less than 4m²) constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. 20. The role of the CPT, as a preventive monitoring body, is different. Its responsibility does not entail pronouncing on whether a certain situation amounts to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of Article 3 of the ECHR.8 However, in the course of its visits the Committee has been confronted with prison conditions that beggared belief and were, as described in one visit report, an “affront to a civilised society”. Hence, in a number of visit reports it has stated that the conditions observed in grossly overcrowded prisons could be considered as amounting to “inhuman and degrading treatment”. 21. The CPT has never considered that its cell-size standards should be regarded as absolute. In other words, it does not automatically hold the view that a minor deviation from its minimum standards may in itself be considered as amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment of the prisoner(s) concerned, as long as other, alleviating, factors can be found, such as, in particular, the fact that inmates are able to spend a considerable amount of time each day outside their cells (in workshops, classes or other activities). Nevertheless, even in such cases, the CPT would still recommend that the minimum standard be adhered to. 22. On the other hand, for the Committee to say that conditions of detention could be considered as amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment, the cells either have to be extremely overcrowded or, as in most cases, combine a number of negative elements, such as an insufficient number of beds for all inmates, poor hygiene, infestation with vermin, insufficient ventilation, heating or light, lack of in-cell sanitation and in consequence the use of buckets or bottles for the needs of nature. In fact, the likelihood that a place of detention is very overcrowded but at the same time well ventilated, clean and equipped with a sufficient number of beds is extremely low. Thus, it is not surprising that the CPT often enumerates the factors that constitute appalling detention conditions, rather than just referring to inadequate living space. In addition – but by no means in every case – other factors not directly related to the conditions are taken into account by the CPT when assessing a particular situation. These factors include little out-of-cell time and generally a poor regime; reduced outdoor exercise; deprivation of contacts with relatives for several years, etc. 23. The Appendix to this document contains a non-exhaustive list of factors (other than the amount of living space per prisoner) to be taken into consideration when assessing detention conditions in prison. 8 See in this regard Article 17 (2) of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ECPT).