CAT/C/68/D/817/2017 decided, in order to encourage him to be more disciplined, to allow him to spend his outdoor time in the company of other inmates instead of spending it alone, as he had done previously. Concerning his medical care, the General Delegation stated that the complainant was closely monitored by the prison doctor; that he had received all necessary medical assistance, either at the prison infirmary or at the public hospital, since the beginning of his imprisonment; that he regularly received the medication prescribed for him, as shown by his medical record; and that he followed a diet that the prison doctor had recommended to him on 30 March 2017. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 6.1 On 31 May 2018, the complainant reiterated that his conditions of detention unfortunately had not changed, despite the interim measures requested by the Committee. With regard to the developments since 11 September 2017, the complainant refers to a letter dated 12 September 2017 that he sent to both the Minister of Justice and the National Human Rights Council to complain about the failure to assess his conditions of detention. He stressed that the treatment inflicted on him clearly constituted arbitrary isolation for an indefinite and prolonged period. He complained about the draconian restriction of his contacts with his family, with whom he could speak by telephone for only 10 minutes a week. He also asked to be placed in the group regime, under which he had been held before 16 October 2016, when he was being held at the Salé 2 prison. 6.2 On 20 February 2018, in response to the letter dated 7 November 2017 from the General Delegation for Prison Administration and Reintegration, the complainant’s counsel inquired about: (a) the conditions of detention applicable to category A inmates; (b) the differences between the conditions applied to the complainant and solitary confinement; (c) the results of the reassessment of the complainant’s conditions of detention every four months; and (d) the issue of whether his views had been taken into account. Despite that request, no response has been received. The conditions of detention have not changed, and the complainant has never been informed of the reasons for these conditions. No reassessment of his situation seems to have been carried out, and none of his procedural rights have been respected. 6.3 In response to requests from Amnesty International, the Organisation marocaine des droits humains (Moroccan Human Rights Organization) visited the complainant. That association made a list of his grievances and recommended that he be held in a prison closer to his family, and that he be transferred to cell block B, so that he could be entitled to go outdoors twice a day and contact his family, especially as he had served more than two thirds of his sentence. His situation has not changed since then: he is still in solitary confinement in the same wing of the Tiflet 2 prison, and his opportunities for contact with his family have not improved. The recommendations of the Organisation marocaine des droits humains have not been implemented. On 9 March 2018, the complainant’s sister stated that she had been able to speak to him by telephone for 5 minutes and 15 seconds and that the complainant was locked alone in his cell for 23 out of every 24 hours, with 1 hour in an exercise yard, but without any contact with the other inmates, either in the area where he was being held or outdoors. The conditions of detention remained difficult, and the atmosphere, very tense. He slept on concrete without a mattress, his diet was very poor and he had been asking for more than two weeks to see a doctor. 6.4 On 26 March 2018, one of his lawyers who had been able to visit the complainant summarized the situation as follows: “In essence, the conditions of the complainant’s detention have not changed. He remains in the same damp and freezing cell at the far end of a wing with seven other detainees in pretrial detention at the other end. They do not talk to him and he does not want to talk to them for fear that this will cause new problems, such as suspicions of radicalization. Two of these detainees once started talking to him, and two days later, they were transferred to another wing.” 6.5 In concrete terms, the complainant has the right to go outdoors once a day, to take a shower once a week, to eat boiled vegetables at lunchtime − but he has to pay for all other food − and to make two 5-minute telephone calls a week. He has no radio, but he can read. He has no other activity. In 2017, the situation was calm. Nevertheless, when he complained to a warden that other inmates had stolen his hair clipper, the warden was GE.20-00011 7