A/66/268 justification for the use of solitary confinement. 8 In circumstances of prolonged solitary confinement, the Court has held that the justification for solitary confinement must be explained to the individual and the justification must be “increasingly detailed and compelling” as time goes on. 9 35. Through its jurisprudence, the European Court of Human Rights emphasizes that certain procedural safeguards must be in place during the imposition of solitary confinement, for example, monitoring a prisoner’s physical well-being,9 particularly where the individual is not in good health 10 and having access to judicial review. 11 36. The level of isolation imposed on an individual is essential to the European Court of Human Rights’ assessment of whether instances of physical and mental isolation constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. A prolonged absolute prohibition of visits from individuals from outside the prison causes suffering “clearly exceeding the unavoidable level inherent in detention”. 12 However, where the individual can receive visitors and write letters, 13 have access to television, books and newspapers and regular contact with prison staff 14 or visit with clergy or lawyers on a regular basis, 15 isolation is “partial”, and the minimum threshold of severity — which the European Court of Human Rights considers necessary to find a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights — is not met. Nevertheless, the Court has emphasized that solitary confinement, even where the isolation is only partial, cannot be imposed on a prisoner indefinitely. 16 Inter-American System on Human Rights 37. The jurisprudence on solitary confinement within the Inter-American System on Human Rights is more conclusive than within the bodies discussed above. Since its earliest judgments, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has found that certain elements of a prison regime and certain physical prison conditions in themselves constitute cruel and inhuman treatment, and therefore violate article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which recognizes the right to the integrity of the person. For example, the Court held that “prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment, harmful to the psychological and moral integrity of the person and a violation of the __________________ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11-44570 Iorgov v. Bulgaria, Application No. 40653/98, European Court of Human Rights, para. 84 (2004); G.B. v. Bulgaria, Application No. 42346/98, European Court of Human Rights, para. 85 (2004). A.B. v. Russia, Application No. 1439/06, European Court of Human Rights, para. 108 (2010). Palushi v. Austria, Application No. 27900/04, European Court of Human Rights, paras. 72 and 73 (2009). A.B. v. Russia, para. 111. Onoufriou v. Cyprus, Application No. 24407/04, European Court of Human Rights, para. 80 (2010). Ocalan v. Turkey, Application No. 46221/99, European Court of Human Rights, para. 196 (2005). Rohde v. Denmark, Application No. 69332/01, European Court of Human Rights, para. 97 (2005). Ramírez Sanchez v. France, Application No. 59450/00, European Court of Human Rights, paras. 105, 106 and 135 (2006). Ibid., para. 145. 11