the establishment N14, 67 prisoners in the establishment N 15, 2 prisoners in the establishment N 16, 73 prisoners in the establishment N 17, 5 prisoners in the establishment N 18, 5 prisoners in the establishment in N 19, following the above described procedure. Besides, the checks showed that placement of prisoners in separate, solitary cells is frequent and even systematic, even without following the above procedure and in the absence of an adequate legal basis. It was revealed that in the establishments N 6, N7 and N9 some prisoners were separated from other prisoners against their will for years and remain separated until now. In addition, some of these prisoners did not have longterm visits. One prisoner that has been separated from other prisoners since 2005 is sentenced to life imprisonment. The practice of separation of prisoners from others shows that this measure is used in penitentiary establishments in violation of important legal principles and guarantees. There are cases of placing prisoners separately for long terms, in the absence of a formal basis for using this measure, namely the order of the director, the issuance of which is mandatory, according to the regulations of the establishment. This practice constitutes a violation of the requirements of law. It is also worth taking into account that the convicts do not have the possibility to challenge the measure (indefinite separation from other convicts). Besides, it is necessary to pay attention to the grounds and duration for extending the term of separating prisoners, according to the regulations of the special risk establishments for deprivation of liberty. This allows the administration of the establishment to separate prisoners for an undefined term. The European Court of Human Rights has underlined in a few judgments that under Article 3, the state is obliged to secure serving the sentence under the conditions respectful of human dignity, so that it does not cause distress or suffering intensity of which exceeds suffering inevitably connected to imprisonment and to ensure protection of health of the prisoner properly, taking into account practical demands of imprisonment.41 The Court also points out that in assessing conditions of imprisonment, their cumulative effect needs to be taken into account, along with specific charges against the applicant.42 In the case Pretty v. the UK43, the Court noted that the right covers elements of physical and mental unity. Private life may also cover such aspects as self-perception. The Court explained that Article 8 of the Convention covers the right to personal development and 41 See Valašinas v. Lithuania, Appl.no N44558/98, para. 102, ECHR 2001-VIII; Kudła v. Poland [GC], Appl. no N30210/96, para. 94, ECHR 2000-XI. 42 See Dougoz v. Greece, N40907/98, para. 46, ECHR 2001-II. 43 Pretty v UK, 29 April 2002. 48 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM (NPM), 2015