-30 regime may be applied. High security regimes may include a special high security prison ward, the prohibition of contact with other prisoners, constant monitoring of the cell – including sanitary facilities – via close circuit television cameras, increased supervision of movement within and outside the remand centre, limitations on contact with family together with special arrangements for family visits and inspections of body and clothes. Rule 53.2 of the EPR emphasises that special security measures should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and reviewed regularly. Similar rules are provided by a number of Council of Europe recommendations for prisoners under a life-sentence and other long term prisoners,34 dangerous prisoners35 as well as prisoners sentenced for terrorist-related crimes.36 The UN Committee against Torture (CAT Committee) has also expressed concerns at the severe conditions of detention imposed on prisoners in the highest security category.37 STANDARDS IN FOCUS The issue of security regimes was addressed by the ECtHR in several cases concerning Art 3 ECHR.38 In its assessment, the ECHR took into account. • The stringency of the measure • Its duration • The objectives pursued • The cumulative effect on the person concerned. Public-order considerations may lead the State to introduce high‑security prison regimes for particular categories of detainees, e.g. dangerous detainees. However, in applying those regimes the State must ensure that: 34. CoE, ‘Recommendation Rec (2003)23 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the management by prison administrations of life sentence and other long-term prisoners’ (2003) Rec(2003)23 § 20. 35. CM/Rec (2014)3 § 41; and CoE, ‘Recommendation No Rec (82) 17 Concerning Custody and Treatment of Dangerous Prisoners’ (2005) R (82) 17. 36. CoE, CM, ‘Guidelines for Prison and Probation Services Regarding Radicalisation and Violent Extremism’ (2016) § 21. 37. E.g. CAT Committee, Concluding Observations: Spain (2002) CAT/C/CR/29/3; CAT Committee, Concluding Observations: Italy (2017) CAT/C/ITA/CO/5-6. 38. ECtHR, Indelicato v Italy, No 31143/96, 18 October 2001; ECtHR, Labita v Italy, No 26772/95, 6 April 2000; ECtHR, Van der Ven v the Netherlands, No 50901/99, 4 February 2003 and ECtHR, Lorsé and Others v the Netherlands, No 52750/99, 4 February 2003; ECtHR, Piechowicz v Poland, No 20071/07, 17 April 2012, paras 161-162.