A/68/295 Solitary confinement 60. Prison regimes of solitary confinement often cause mental and physical suffering or humiliation that amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. If used intentionally for purposes such as punishment, intimidation, coercion or obtaining information or a confession, or for any reason based on discrimination, and if the resulting pain or suffering are severe, solitary confinement even amounts to torture (A/66/268, paras. 76, 87 and 88). Solitary confinement should be imposed, if at all, in very exceptional circumstances, as a last resort, for as short a time as possible and with established safeguards in place after obtaining the authorization of the competent authority subject to independent review. 61. The Rules should prohibit the use and imposition of indefinite solitary confinement either as part of a judicially imposed sentence or a disciplinary measure, and alternative disciplinary sanctions should be introduced to avoid the use of solitary confinement. The Rules should also prohibit prolonged solitary confinement and frequently renewed measures that amount to prolonged solitary confinement. The Rules should establish a maximum term of days beyond which solitary confinement is considered prolonged. The Rules should explicitly prohibit the imposition of solitary confinement of any duration for juveniles, persons with psychosocial disabilities or other disabilities or health conditions, pregnant women, women with infants and breastfeeding mothers (see the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners, rule 22, and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, rule 67). No prisoner, including those serving life sentence and prisoners on death row, shall be held in solitary confinement merely because of the gravity of the crime. Investigation of all deaths in custody, as well as any signs or allegations of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners 62. The State bears the burden of evidentiary proof to rebut the presumption that the State is responsible for violations of the right to life and for inhumane treatment committed against persons in its custody. Accordingly, the obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of an individual in custody is particularly stringent where that individual dies (A/61/311, para. 54). 9 In this respect, the lack of a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation into allegations of torture and other ill-treatment or death in custody remains one of the major challenges in fighting impunity for such acts. 63. The decision on whether to conduct an investigation is not discretionary, but rather an obligation irrespective of whether a complaint is filed or not. The decision by the Committee against Torture in the well-known case Blanco Abad v. Spain, wherein a relatively short delay was held to constitute a violation of article 12 of the Convention against Torture, confirms the interpretation that a prompt investigation, in order to be effective, must be initiated within hours or, at the most, within days. 10 __________________ 9 10 16/23 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (2011). Available from www.oas.org/en/iachr/pdl/docs/pdf/ PPL2011eng.pdf. Blanco Abad v. Spain, Comm. No. 59/1996, para. 8.5. See also: Manfred Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary, 2nd ed. (Kehl am Rhein, N. P. Engel Verlag, 2005), p. 434. 13-42285