When separated from the general prison population, (suspected) violent extremist prisoners as well as, in some countries, those considered “at risk” of VERLT, are most often held in individual cells in the highest security or dedicated units/prisons. This often results in regimes where there is continuous monitoring, limited outdoor time, no or limited access to work and other activities, and limited meaningful human contact. Others who are kept among the general prison population are often subjected to restrictions not applied to the rest of the prison population. All face real risks of stigmatization, humiliation, discrimination and disproportionate or otherwise arbitrary restrictions concerning their detention conditions and treatment based on their “status”. As highlighted in section 2.1, they too often have limited or ineffective opportunities to challenge such restrictions. Their detention regime represents a high-risk situation for abuse, ill-treatment or even torture. Solitary confinement The UN Nelson Mandela Rules define solitary confinement as “the confinement of 244 prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact”, and require it to be authorized by law, regardless of it being imposed as a disciplinary measure or to 245 maintain order and security, and be subjected to independent review. The European Prison Rules (EPR) go even further, stating that, in all cases where a prisoner is separated from other prisoners (except separation for disciplinary purposes), they “shall be offered 246 at least two hours of meaningful human contact a day”. Solitary confinement shall be used only in very exceptional cases as a last resort and for as short a time as possible, 247 and it shall not be imposed by virtue of a prisoner’s sentence. In cases when isolation amounts to solitary confinement, the practice of automatically isolating individuals on the basis of their charges and offences is contrary to this prohibition, as set out in the UN 248 Nelson Mandela Rules. There is well documented evidence that solitary confinement can have serious psychological 249 and physiological effects on prisoners. Healthcare staff must not have any role in the 244 UN Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 13, Rule 44. For more information on what constitutes “meaningful human contact”, see: ODIHR & PRI, Guidance Document on the Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 10, Chapter 4, paras. 50-51. 245 UN Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 13, Rules 37.d, 45.1. In fact, according to Rule 37(d), The following shall always be subject to authorization by law or by the regulation of the competent administrative authority: “Any form of involuntary separation from the general prison population, such as solitary confinement, isolation, segregation, special care units or restricted housing, whether as a disciplinary sanction or for the maintenance of order and security, including promulgating policies and procedures governing the use and review of, admission to and release from any form of involuntary separation.” 246 “It follows from this provision that all prisoners who do not have access to such contact are being held in solitary confinement as defined in the UN Nelson Mandela Rules, and in breach of Rule 53A of the EPR. In this sense, the EPR actually prohibit solitary confinement (at least as defined by the UN Nelson Mandela Rules) for all purposes except disciplinary ones. For this reason, “separation” is used as a distinct term in Rule 53A.” https://theartofcrime.gr/whats-new-in-the-2020-european-prison-rules-innovative-provisionson-separation-solitary-confinement-and-other-prison-practices/. 247 Ibid., Rule 45; Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, op. cit., note 125, Principle 7; EPR, op. cit., note 123, Rule 60(6); IACHR, “Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas”, op. cit., note 123, Principle XXII(3). 248 Ibid., Rule 45. 249 ODIHR & PRI, Guidance Document on the Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 10, Chapter 4, para. 43-44. 56