The requirements of the investigation and the undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime, particularly with regard to terrorism, cannot result in limits being placed on the protection to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of individuals.344 The Court is well aware of the immense difficulties faced by States in modern times in protecting their communities from terrorist violence. However, even in these circumstances, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim’s conduct.345 Specific issues relevant to protection from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment Conditions of detention Detention conditions can amount to inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, and even torture. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture is concerned that detention conditions generally can amount to torture.346 This may be the case whether detention is in a prison or elsewhere. Very severe prison conditions can cause pain or suffering that may constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or even torture. Prison conditions may fall into a “grey area” between torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment owing to lack of evidence of the intentional or purposive element required by the term “torture”.347 In assessing the severity of detention conditions the following factors identified by the CPT are relevant:348 • • • • • • • • the space at the disposal of detainees; the supply of water and other articles needed for personal hygiene; the provision of adequate clothing and bedding; the quantity and quality of food and drinking water; recreational facilities (including outdoor exercise); admission of visitors; provision of medical assistance; sanitation, heating, lighting and ventilation; 344 Op. cit., note 338, ECtHR, Tomasi v. France, para. 115; ECtHR, Ribitsch v. Austria, Case no. 42/1994/489/571, 21 November 1995, para. 38. 345 “The prohibition provided by Article 3 against ill-treatment is equally absolute in expulsion cases. Thus, whenever substantial grounds have been shown for believing that an individual would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if removed to another State, the responsibility of the Contracting State to safeguard him or her against such treatment is engaged in the event of expulsion […] In these circumstances, the activities of the individual in question, however undesirable or dangerous, cannot be a material consideration […]”, op. cit., note 143, ECtHR, Chahal v. UK, para. 80; see also ECtHR, V. v. UK, Application no. 24888/94, 16 December 1999, para 69. 346 On 16 January 2002, the Special Rapporteur had transmitted an urgent appeal on this issue concerning detention conditions at Guantánamo Bay, to which the United States Government responded by letter dated 3 April 2002 (see Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Theo van Boven, doc. E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.1, 27 February 2003, paras. 1907-1909). 347 UN OHCHR, Combating Torture, Fact Sheet no. 4 (Rev. 1) (Geneva, 2002), p. 35. 348 The CPT under the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture has identified a number of basic standards derived from that Convention, which in its view must be met in order to protect detained persons from torture and other forms of ill-treatment. See http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/docsstandards.htm. Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 125