CAT/C/ARG/CO/5-6 (c) Develop a suitable methodology for determining prison capacity in federal and provincial prisons, in line with the relevant international standards on habitability; (d) Continue its efforts to develop a single national register of persons subjected to deprivation of liberty as a preventive or punitive measure, which should include information disaggregated by jurisdiction, sex and age of the person concerned, and current status of the proceedings, and ensure that detainees’ attorneys and family members have access to information that is regularly updated. Deprivation of liberty 17. The Committee reiterates the concern that it expressed in its previous concluding observations (see CAT/C/CR/33/1, para. 6 (i)) concerning the high number of persons in pretrial detention, who constitute about 60 per cent of the prison population, and the excessive length of time that they are held. Although it appreciates the initiatives to promote the use of alternatives to deprivation of liberty (see para. 6 (b) above), the Committee regrets the delayed entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. 27063), which contains provisions limiting the use of pretrial detention. The Committee is also concerned about the proposed legislation to amend the Criminal Enforcement Act No. 24660, which bars access to early release for a large number of convicted persons, including persons convicted of non-violent offences, thus hindering their social reintegration and exacerbating the existing prison overcrowding (arts. 2 and 16). 18. The Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Carry out an assessment of the use of pretrial detention at both federal and provincial level, with a view to amending its regulations and adopting the necessary measures, including the training of judges, to ensure that pretrial detention is used only in exceptional circumstances and for limited periods, and promote alternatives to pretrial detention, in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (Tokyo rules) and the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (Bangkok Rules); (b) Avoid adopting legislative amendments that would undermine the principle of gradual return to life in society that forms the basis for the social reintegration of convicted persons, in accordance with international standards (rule 87 of the Mandela Rules, Tokyo Rules and rule 45 of the Bangkok Rules). Solitary confinement 19. The Committee is concerned about the frequent use, as acknowledged by the State party delegation, of unregulated solitary confinement without a court order, such as the provisional placement of detainees in solitary confinement pending their relocation to a “physical integrity protection unit” or another area. The Committee is also concerned about reports alleging extreme conditions in solitary confinement cells (arts. 11 and 16). 20. The State party should bring its solitary confinement practices into line with the provisions of the Mandela Rules. In particular, the State party should: (a) Guarantee that no one is held in solitary confinement, except in situations expressly provided for by law; (b) Ensure that solitary confinement is used only as a measure of last resort, for the shortest possible period of time and under strict conditions of judicial oversight and control; (c) Ensure that a cell in which a punishment of solitary confinement is served complies with the necessary requirements for carrying out the measure without affecting the physical integrity and the dignity of the detainee. GE.17-08409 5