UN TREATY BODIES 1 ice.190 The HRC considered that “the solitary confinement to which the author was subjected, having regard to its strictness, duration and the end pursued, [did not appear to produce] any adverse physical or mental effects on him.”191 The only interference with the dignity of the author was “embarrassment inherent in the disciplinary measure to which he was subjected.”192 The Committee restated that, in order to be degrading, the humiliation or debasement involved must exceed a particular level and entail elements beyond the mere fact of deprivation of liberty. Thus, in this case, the Committee found that neither Article 7 nor Article 10 had been violated. – UNCAT While it has yet to consider the issue in detail under its individual complaints procedure, the CAT also considers that solitary confinement may constitute ill-treatment or torture.193 For example, in its inquiry into indications of systematic torture in Peru, the Committee expressed the view that the solitary confinement regime, which included “sensorial deprivation and the almost total prohibition of communication cause[d] persistent and unjustified suffering which amount[ed] to torture,” and recommended that the Peruvian authorities put an end to the situation.194 The CAT has become increasingly strict over time in its response to solitary confinement. For example, in its 2002 Concluding Observations on Denmark it recommended only that the State Party continue to monitor the effects of solitary confinement on detainees and establish adequate review mechanisms relating to its determination and duration.195 But in its 2007 Concluding Observations, while noting that improvements had occurred, the Committee was much more forceful in its recommendations, stating that Danish authorities “should limit the use of solitary confinement as a measure of last resort, for as short a time as possible under strict supervision and with a possibility of judicial review,” and that the authorities must respect the principle of proportionality and impose strict limits on the use of indefinite pre-trial solitary confinement for security offences.196 In addition, the Committee recommended that the Vuolanne v Finland (1989), op. cit. Ibid. §9.2. Ibid. 193 Ingelse considers it unlikely that a complaint specifically on this issue will ever come before the CAT, given that the HRC is better equipped to deal with the issue. Ingelse, op. cit., p. 257. 194 CAT, Summary account of the results of the proceedings concerning the inquiry on Peru, UN Doc. A/56/44, 2001, §186. 195 CAT, Concluding Observations on Denmark, UN Doc. A/57/44, 2002, §74(c)–(d). 196 CAT, Concluding Observations on Denmark, UN Doc. CAT/C/DNK/CO/5, 2007, §14. 190 191 192 42