CAT/C/32/D/202/2002 Page 14 concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Denmark, the Committee stated that: “…(c) The State party should continue to monitor the effects of solitary confinement on detainees and the effects of the new bill, which has reduced the number of grounds that can give rise to solitary confinement and its length.”10 It is clear from the Committee’s concluding observations that solitary confinement, particularly in cases of pre-trial detention, is considered to have extremely serious mental and psychological consequences for the detainee; States parties are encouraged to abolish the practice. Although abolition is preferable, the concluding observations of the Committee reveal that solitary confinement should be applied only in exceptional cases and not for prolonged periods of time. 5.7 The complainant refers to other review bodies to demonstrate the harmful effects of such confinement, including the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “CPT”) which has produced several reports focusing on this issue. In the CPT’s report to the Danish Government following its visit to Denmark from 28 January to 4 February 2002, it stated, inter alia, that “Solitary confinement can, in certain circumstances, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment; in any event, all forms of solitary confinement should be as short as possible.” The Human Rights Committee, which has considered the issue of solitary confinement in the examination of individual complaints, country reports and general comments, as expressed its concern about its practice. Upon consideration of Denmark’s fourth period report, it noted, inter alia, “that solitary confinement is a harsh penalty with serious psychological consequences and is justifiable only in cases of urgent need; the use of solitary confinement other than in exceptional circumstances and for limited periods is inconsistent with article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Denmark should reconsider the practice of solitary confinement and ensure that it is used only in cases of urgent necessity.”11 5.8 The complainant also invokes the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in particular to the judgment, in the case of McGlinchey and Others v. United Kingdom12, in which the Court found that article 3 “provides that the State must 10 CAT/C/55/Add.2 CCPR/C/DNK/99/4 12 Application no. 50390/99. 11