and international requirements by installing such windows as would ensure to prisoners in the cells access to daylight and natural ventilation. As a result of the Public Defender’s recommendation, the installation of the abovementioned artificial system and windows has been stopped but a handful of other problems yet persist. In its reports on visits to Georgia, the CPT has been paying special attention to windows in the cells of Georgian penitentiary institutions, which are covered with iron shutters and bars preventing the entry of daylight and fresh air into cells.90 The Committee has been urging the Georgian Government to take measures, without delay, to provide the penitentiary institutions with natural lighting and adequate ventilation. CPT has been particularly keen on prisoners’ ability to access daylight and fresh air considering that these two are basic elements of life which must never be denied to prisoners despite any security needs.91 In its judgments against Georgia, the European Court of Human Rights has been referring to the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) stating that the iron shutters on windows in the cells of a penitentiary institution were blocking the entry of fresh and daylight into the cells, and there was no ventilation system to compensate for the absence of lack of air. The Court deemed that these conditions amounted to violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.92 In particular, the European Court of Human Rights stated: “The Court also notes that, in the prison concerned, windows had iron shutters preventing air and natural light from entering the cells. There was no ventilation system to compensate for this lack of air. […] In the view of the Court, the evidence at its hand allows it to consider it proven “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant was indeed kept in the conditions of detention he complained of in his application. In particular, he had no bed of his own and was suffering from constant lack of air and dirt... Therefore, there was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.93 The Penitentiary Institution no. 7 does not have infrastructure for long-term visits for which reason prisoners are unable to enjoy their right to conjugal visits. 90 91 92 93 Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture on its visit to Georgia from 6 to 18 May 2001, published on 25 July 2002, accessible at http://www.refworld.org/docid/415c2d784. html Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture on its visits to Georgia from 18 to 28 November 2003 and from 7 to 14 May 2004, accessible atb http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ geo/2005-12-inf-eng.pdfhttp://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/geo/2005-12-inf-eng.pdf Extract from the 11th General Report [CPT/Inf (2001) 16], p. 25, par. 30, accessible at http://www. cpt.coe.int/en/documents/eng-standards-scr.pdf. Aliev v. Georgia, application #522/04, Judgment of 13 January 2009; Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, Application # 1704/6, 27 January 2009; Ghavtadze v. Georgia, application #23204/07, Judgment of 3 March 2009; Gorgiladze v. Georgia, application #4313/04, Judgment of 20 October 2009. The European Court of Human Rights, Aliev v. Georgia, application #522/04, Judgment of 13 January 2009, paras. 82 to 84 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA 57