UN TREATY BODIES 1 As with Article 7, “Inhuman treatment must attain a minimum level of severity to come within the scope of article 10 of the Covenant. The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age, state of health or other status of the victim.”181 The Committee has found violations of Article 10(1) arising from, inter alia, overcrowding, a lack of natural light and ventilation, inadequate or inappropriate food, a shortage of mattresses, no integral sanitation, unhygienic conditions, inadequate medical services (including psychiatric treatment), and a lack of recreation or educational facilities.182 – UNCAT The CAT has found violations based on conditions of detention during its visits to places of detention.183 Following its visit to Turkish prisons, for example, the Committee called on the authorities “to demolish immediately and systematically all the solitary confinement cells known as ‘coffins’, which in themselves constitute a kind of torture. These cells measure approximately 60 by 80 centimetres, they have no light and inadequate ventilation, and the inmate can only stand or crouch.”184 Like the HRC, the CAT has expressed concern about conditions such as overcrowding, violence among prisoners, lack of separation of different categories of detainee, excessive periods of detention in facilities equipped only for short-term detention, lack of natural light or ventilation, unhygienic conditions, inadequate medical services or undue delays in the provision of medical services, and lack of recreation or educational facilities.185 Again like Brough v Australia, HRC Communication No. 1184/2003, 17 March 2006, §9.2. See, for example, Mika Miha v Equatorial Guinea, HRC Communication No. 414/1990, 8 July 1994; Griffin v Spain, HRC Communication No. 493/1992, 4 April 1995; Yasseen and Thomas v Guyana, HRC Communication No. 676/1996, 30 March 1998; M’Boissona v the Central African Republic, HRC Communication No. 428/1990, 7 April 1994; Freemantle v Jamaica (2000), op. cit.; Sextus v Trinidad and Tobago, HRC Communication No. 818/1998, 16 July 2001; Lantsova v the Russian Federation, HRC Communication No. 763/1997, 26 March 2002; Madafferi v Australia, HRC Communication No. 1011/2001, 26 July 2004. 183 Under Article 20 UNCAT, the CAT has the power to request that a State Party allow such a visit where there is “reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party.” The CAT has yet to find a violation based solely on conditions of detention, but has indicated that such violations are, however, possible. See, for example, Attia v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 199/2002, 17 November 2003. 184 CAT, Summary account of the results of the proceedings concerning the inquiry on Turkey, UN Doc. A/48/44/Add.1, 1993, §52. 185 See, for example, CAT, Concluding Observations on Japan, UN Doc. CAT/C/JPN/CO/1, 2007; Concluding Observations on Croatia, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/32/3, 2004; Concluding Observations on Chile, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/32/5, 2004; Concluding Observations on Moldova, UN 181 182 40