According to Article 88(2) of the Code of Imprisonment, persons subjected to solitary confinement are restricted from the enjoyment of certain rights such as short and long visits, telephone calls and shopping for food. These restrictions are actually applied in practice. The CPT has recommended the Georgian Government to “take steps to ensure that the placement of prisoners in disciplinary cells does not include a total prohibition on family contacts. Any restrictions on family contacts as a form of punishment should be used only where the offence relates to such contacts.”117 On this matter, in 2012, the Public Defender addressed the Parliament with a proposal to amend the Imprisonment Code accordingly; in its 2013 Report to the Parliament, the Public Defender reiterated that the above provision needed to be amended. Despite these appeals, Article 88 of the Imprisonment Code remains unchanged. During its visit to the penitentiary institution no. 14, the monitoring group was informed about lack of access to medical services for those placed in solitary confinement cells. Thus, a prisoner who was serving his 3-day disciplinary punishment in a solitary confinement cell in the institution no. 14 had health problems, including a mental health issue. Due his mental illness, he had been prescribed drugs such as diazepam and tizercin. As the prisoner told us, he had been waiting for the healthcare staff to provide him with his prescription drugs and was making noise by hitting his legs against the cell door as a sign of protest. As a result, he was imposed solitary confinement as a sanction for making the noise. According to the prisoner, the healthcare staff did not visit him in the solitary confinement cell.118 In Kudla v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that Article 3 of the Convention obliges the State to protect the physical health of a detained person. In many of its judgments has the Court stated that it is incumbent upon the relevant domestic authorities to ensure, in particular, that diagnosis and care have been prompt and accurate, and that supervision by proficient medical personnel has been regular and systematic and involved a comprehensive therapeutic strategy.119. According to the 2007 Istanbul Statement on the use and effects of solitary confinement,120 use of solitary confinement in relation to mentally ill prisoners should be absolutely prohibited. Unfortunately, we revealed a number of occurrences of keeping mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement cells in the penitentiary institutions nos. 3, 14 and 17. As a result of the monitoring, we found out that prison leaders are less willing to cooperate with and to take into consideration the recommendations of prison healthcare staff in making decision on placing individual prisoners in solitary confinement cells. Such practice seriously endangers the lives and 117 CPT Report on its visit to Georgia during 5-15 February 2010, par. 115 at http://www.cpt.coe.int/ documents/geo/2010-27-inf-eng.htm [last viewed 12.03.2014]. 118 See the Public Defender’s report on its visit to the penitentiary institution no. 14 at http:// www.ombudsman.ge/ge/reports/specialuri-angarishebi/angarishi-sasdjelagsrulebis-n14dawesebulebashi-vizitis-shesaxeb-2014-wlis-19-20-oqtomberi.page 119 See, inter alia, Jashi v. Georgia, Judgment of 8 January 2013, par. 61 120 International Psychological Trauma Symposium (2007), The Istanbul Statement on the use and effects of solitary confinement. 76 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA