to the constraints of life in prison, or their psychological/psychiatric profile.42 This group of prisoners will (or at least should, if the classification system is operating satisfactorily) represent a very small proportion of the overall prison population. However, it is a group that is of particular concern to the CPT, as the need to take exceptional measures vis-à-vis such prisoners, brings with it a greater risk of inhuman treatment.43 Under Rule 27 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, ‘discipline and order shall be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life.’44 As is well established in the Court’s case-law, during their imprisonment prisoners continue to enjoy all fundamental rights and freedoms, save for the right to liberty. It follows, in general terms, that severe measures limiting Convention rights must not be resorted to lightly; more particularly, the principle of proportionality requires a discernible and sufficient link between the application of such measures and the conduct and circumstances of the individual concerned.45 Under Article 662 of the Code of Imprisonment of Georgia, ‘for the purpose of serving a sentence, a high risk prison facility is used for highly dangerous convicted persons whose personal qualities, criminal influence, motive of the crime, consequences of the unlawful actions and/or conduct demonstrated in the prison facility poses or may pose a serious threat to the prison facility or to other persons, and to the state or public security and/or to the law enforcement authorities.’ 46 It is noteworthy that under Order no. 106 on Penitentiary Establishments, issued by the Ministry of Corrections of Georgia, the penitentiary establishments nos. 3, 6, and 7 have been assigned the status of high risk prison facility. The Public Defender negatively assesses the policy of the Ministry of Corrections concerning the high risk prison facilities. According to the established practices, these are penitentiary establishments based on static security principles with a particularly restrictive, prohibitive and unconditionally strict regime. Such conditions are not conducive to positive changes in inmates’ behaviour, their rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into the society. It is noteworthy that in accordance with the statutes of the high risk prison facilities, inmates are placed in single or double cells. This falls within the discretion of a director of the establishment. The Public Defender believes that the existing regulation vests the directors of high risk prison facilities with the right to take arbitrary decisions about placing an inmate for a considerable time in a single cell and limit contact with other prisoners. The Public Defender stresses the need for the amendment of the statutes of the high risk prison facilities for ensuring that placement in a single cell is based on individual assessment of the risks a particular inmate poses and reasoned decision. Furthermore, such decisions should be reviewed within reasonable intervals and placement in a single cell 42 43 44 45 46 32 Idem. [Last visited on 07.03.2017]. Idem. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 1997, Rule 27. Khoroshenko v. Russia, application no. 41418/04, judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of 30 June 2015, para. 141. The Code of Imprisonment of Georgia, Article 662. HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN CLOSED INSTITUTIONS