&37*HQHUDO5HSRUW 7\SHVRIVROLWDU\FRQILQHPHQWDQGWKHLU OHJLWLPDF\ 56. There are four main situations in which solitary confinement is used. Each has its own rationale and each should be viewed differently: (a) Solitary confinement as the result of a court decision In most countries, courts have the power to order that a person remanded in custody (i.e. placed in pre-trial detention) be held for a certain period in solitary confinement, in the interests of the criminal investigation. Further, in a few countries, a period of solitary confinement is an automatic part of some sentences established by legislation or can be ordered by a court as part of a sentence. In relation to solitary confinement ordered by a court as part of remand conditions, it is axiomatic that there may be justification, in an individual case and based on sufficient evidence, for keeping a given remand prisoner apart from other particular prisoners or, in even more exceptional circumstances, prisoners in general, and in restricting his/her contact with the outside world. This should only be done to guard against a real risk to the administration of justice and must be subject to the safeguards outlined in paragraph 57 below. The CPT considers that solitary confinement should never be imposed – or be imposable at the discretion of the court concerned – as part of a sentence. The generally accepted principle that offenders are sent to prison as a punishment, not to receive punishment, should be recalled in this context. Imprisonment is a punishment in its own right and potentially dangerous aggravations of a prison sentence as part of the punishment are not acceptable. It may be necessary for a sentenced prisoner to be subject, for a certain period of time, to a solitary confinement regime; however, the imposition of such a regime should lie with the prison authorities and not be made part of the catalogue of criminal sanctions.