CCPR/C/130/D/2818/2016 Committee therefore considers that the author was unlawfully held in solitary confinement on 16 and 17 November 2009, in violation of his rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 7.3 The Committee also notes that the Reykjanes District Court issued decisions on 18 and 21 October 2009 by which it ordered the author’s pretrial detention in solitary confinement from 18 to 28 October 2009. The Committee notes that, in those decisions, the Reykjanes District Court provided no information about the claim against the author or the evidence gathered against him. In its reasoning, it merely cited article 99 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explaining how that provision justified the continued detention of the author. The Committee notes that article 99 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that solitary confinement may only be ordered through a judge’s ruling; it does not provide any basis for determining when it is appropriate. Thus, the Committee observes that it is not possible to discern from the decisions dated 18 and 21 October 2009 or from any other explanation of the State party of the precise reasons for which the author’s prolonged detention of 30 days in solitary confinement was necessary, as the State party asserts. The Committee recalls that solitary confinement, as a further restriction on persons already detained, can also amount to a violation of article 9,7 particularly where the treatment of the detainees does not relate to the purpose for which they are ostensibly being detained. 8 Accordingly, and in the light of the failure of the State party to provide any individualized justification for why the author was kept in solitary confinement, the Committee concludes that the author’s solitary confinement from 18 October to 17 November 2009 was arbitrary, in violation of his rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 8. In the light of its findings, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine the author’s separate claim under article 9 of the Covenant regarding the overall length of his pretrial detention. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 10. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to provide the author with adequate compensation for the violation suffered. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 11. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and disseminate them widely in the official language of the State party. 7 8 Ibid., para. 5. Ibid., para. 14. 11