CAT/C/32/D/202/2002 Page 11 oral information had been produced on the state of her mental health. The report of 28 May 1998 was produced in the High Court, when it made its order on the same date, but it did not find that this information was such as to make the complainant’s continued detention in solitary confinement disproportionate. The subsequent report of 19 June 1998 was produced at the following hearing on 22 June 1998, when the complainant’s solitary confinement had already been terminated. Nevertheless, the Court decided to initiate an examination by a forensic psychiatrist, whose report was submitted at the hearing on 14 July 1998. The Court complied with the recommendation of the report and ordered that the complainant be placed in alternative detention in the Lyng Halfway House, where she could stay with her children. 4.14 On the alleged violation of article 12, the State party submits that it is characteristic of the complaints previously considered by the Committee under this provision that the authorities involved were executive authorities that had carried out actions which could be characterized as torture or ill-treatment, and which had taken place in connection with an arrest or detention.8 By contrast, the State party is not aware of any case in which article 12 was invoked in relation to decisions made by judicial authorities. The State party argues that the decision on pre-trial detention in solitary confinement was made by an independent and impartial court on the basis of a procedure which fully protected the complainant’s right to a fair hearing. In its view, there is no basis for interpreting article 12 in a way that an administrative authority, here the DPP, is obliged to proceed to an investigation in a case where a detainee is dissatisfied with the court decisions in his/her case. Such an arrangement would clearly be contrary to the principle of the independence of the courts. To the extent that article 12 applies at all in relation to the present complaint, the State party reiterates its comments above on the proportionality test used by the courts in deciding on detention in solitary confinement. Complainant’s comments: 5.1 By submission of 13 October 2003, the complainant submits that an application for leave to appeal to the Board of Appeal is a mere theoretical possibility. The 8 The State party refers to Radivoje Ristic v. Yugoslavia, Complaint No. 113/1998 of 11 May 2001; Khaled M’Barek v. Tunisia, Complaint No. 60/1996 of 10 November 1999; Encarnacion Blanco Abad v. Spain, Complaint No. 59/1996 of 14 May 1998; Henri Unai Parot v. Spain Complaint No. 6/1990 of 2 May 1995; and Qani Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, Complaint No. 8/1991 of 18 November 1993.