CAT/C/32/D/202/2002 Page 9 detention is decided for any other purpose, it would be contrary to the rules of the Act and thus unlawful. 4.8 The State party denies that solitary confinement during pre-trial detention is in principle contrary to article 16 of the Convention. Article 16 supplements article 1, and both articles correspond to the first sentence of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (hereinafter the “ICCPR”). Article 7 provides that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” According to the State party, it can be inferred from the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 20 that solitary confinement during pre-trial detention is not in principle contrary to article 7 of the ICCPR, as the General Comment states that prolonged solitary confinement of the detained or imprisoned person may amount to acts prohibited by article 7” (emphasis added), that is, in specific cases depending on the circumstances of the individual case. 4.9 The State party acknowledges that there may be cases in which pre-trial detention in solitary confinement may constitute “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment”. It invokes the principle adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in considering the possibility of violations of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”) In the case of Rasch v. Denmark, it was stated that “when a measure of solitary confinement is considered, a balance must be struck between the requirements of the investigation and the effect which the isolation will have on the detained person. Where solitary confinement is applied, the authorities must therefore ensure that its duration does not become excessive.”6 Under the European Convention, pre-trial detention in solitary confinement may, in certain circumstances, constitute “inhuman treatment”.7 4.10 In challenging the alleged violations of articles 1, paragraph 1 and 16, the State party describes the complainant’s conditions of detention in solitary confinement. The cells of the prison measure approximately 8 m2 and have television and radio. It is 6 Application No. 10263/83, decision of 11 March 1985. According to the State party, this principle has been followed by the European Court in the following cases: Application No. 38321/97, Erdem v. Germany, decision of 9 December 1999, and Application No. 25498/94, Messina v. Italy, decision of 8 June 1999. 7