can be suspended from office only if he/she is formally found accused. Further, the law does not contain any mandatory provision obligating the relevant authorities to move a possible victim of ill-treatment to another institution. We welcome the fact that the Interagency Coordination Council for the implementation of measures against Torture, Inhuman, Cruel or Degrading Treatment, which has been established by a Government Resolution no. 341 dated 7 May 2014, drafted a set of amendments to the effect of increasing the role of judges in combating torture. The amendments propose the following new regulations: •• If, at any stage of hearing/proceedings, a judge doubts that the accused/con- victed person has been subjected to torture, degrading or inhuman treatment, he/she will be authorized to request that the relevant investigative body commence investigation; •• A judge may issue a judicial order obliging the Penitentiary Department to report to the court about the prisoner’s health status. The judicial order may specify periodicity of such reporting; •• If there is a likelihood that a prisoner’s life or health will be at risk if the prisoner remains in the same remand facility / place of deprivation of liberty or there is a supposition, including information received under paragraph 2 of this Article, that the prisoner has been or may be subjected to torture, degrading or inhuman treatment, a judge may issue a judicial order obliging the Penitentiary Department to move the prisoner to other remand facility / place of deprivation of liberty. 2.2.3.1.  INCOMPLIANT DETENTION CONDITIONS According to the case-law developed by the European Court of Human Rights, Article 3 of the Convention may be violated not only by action but by the conditions in which a person is kept detained. In Dougoz v. Greece, the Court elaborated detention conditions/criteria, which, among others, include the standard that there should be a normal temperature in the cell so that it is neither too hot nor too cold; bedding is appropriate; and sanitation complies with the standards. In Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, the European Court of Human Rights stated that, under Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject the individual to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. In its judgment in Modârcă v. Moldova, the European Court of Human Rights explained that a combination of different expressions of inappropriate living conditions may have a cumulative effect to amount to violation of the right under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (inhuman and degrading treatment). NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA 27