The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, in his report on the mission to Georgia in 2015, discussed the practice of isolation of prisoners in penitentiary establishments of Georgia. The Special Rapporteur wrote that he was informed that, in practice, inmates may spend several months in this form of solitary confinement, and is of the opinion that this may constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and even torture, and may indeed risk exacerbating the conditions that make these inmates a risk to themselves or others in the first place.78 In the Parliamentary Report of 2015, the Public Defender recommended to the Minister of Corrections to ensure mandatory review of solitary confinements after 14 days of the application of this measure and in the same intervals afterwards. This recommendation has not been fulfilled. The Public Defender’s position remains the same that it is important to introduce relevant legal safeguards so that separated inmates do not find themselves in conditions that aggravate the suffering inherent in detention and solitary confinement. In case of the above convicted persons, it is unclear what the terms of solitary confinement are and upon existence of what circumstances its need ceases to exist. It is likewise unclear why it is impossible to attain the objective sought by the director of a penitentiary establishment – safety of inmates – by means of placing the prisoner concerned with other convicts or transferring to another establishment. The Public Defender brought this issue to the attention of the Minister of Corrections in his Parliamentary Report of 2015 and recommended to the Minister to ensure immediately that the inmates separated forcefully and in breach of the statutory requirements about grounds and procedure of the application of this measure are placed with other prisoners. The Public Defender also recommended to the Minister to ensure the introduction of the relevant legal safeguards so that separated inmates do not find themselves in conditions that enhance the suffering inherent in detention and solitary confinement. These recommendations have not been fulfilled. It is impermissible to ignore the approach taken by international human rights law according to which the state has an obligation to review periodically the necessity and proportionality of the measures applied for the safety of a convicted person. Under rule 51.1 of the European Prison Rules, ‘the level of security necessary shall be reviewed at regular intervals throughout a person’s imprisonment.’ In the case of Ramirez Sanchez, the European Court of Human Rights emphasised that solitary confinement, even in cases entailing only relative isolation, cannot be imposed on a prisoner indefinitely.  Moreover, it is essential that the prisoner should be able to have an independent judicial authority review the merits and reasons for a prolonged measure of solitary confinement. The Court found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in this case. It noted in particular that prisoners in solitary confinement did not have any remedy available to challenge the original measure or any renewal of it.79 78 79 50 Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on his mission to Georgia, A/HRC/31/57/Add.3, para. 85. Ramirez Sanchez v. France, application no. 59450/00, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN CLOSED INSTITUTIONS