as a preventive measure during pre-trial detention”, it did not state that pre-trial detention in solitary confinement, in principle, comes within the definition of torture.d Nor, indeed, can this be inferred from the Committee’s jurisprudence. 4.7The State party submits that solitary confinement is not, and in this particular case was not, effected to obtain information or a confession from the complainant, to punish her for an act she committed or was suspected of having committed, to intimidate or coerce her or a third person or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. Under the current rules, pre-trial detention in solitary confinement presupposes that there are “specific reasons for assuming, in the circumstances of the case, that the person charged will hamper the prosecution of the case, particularly by removing clues or warning or influencing others”, and that “there are specific reasons to assume that the pre-trial detention is not in itself sufficient to prevent the detainee from influencing other persons charged through other inmates or from influencing others by threats or in another similar way”.e If solitary confinement during pre-trial detention is decided for any other purpose, it would be contrary to the rules of the Act and thus unlawful. 4.8The 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. 4.9The 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”.f Under the European Convention, pre-trial detention in solitary confinement may, in certain circumstances, constitute “inhuman treatment”.g 4.10In 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 possible to borrow newspapers, and books can be ordered from the Kalundborg Public Library. There are two daily outdoor exercise periods, one in the morning, one in the afternoon, each for half an hour. It is possible to use a fitness room. 4.11The State party submits that the complainant was not completely cut off from contact with other people during her 50-day period of detention in solitary confinement. She had contact with the prison staff on a daily basis; her parents and children nine times; a social worker twice; the prison physician/doctor six times; the emergency service physician twice; and a psychotherapist three times. She could contact her counsel, a minister of religion or someone from the Prison and Probation Service. From 29 to 30 May 1998, she was hospitalized at the County Hospital of Nykøbing, Zealand; she was brought before the District Court three times in connection with the requests for continued solitary confinement. 4.12According to the State party, the charge of smuggling against the complainant was of a particularly aggravated nature. At the hearing on 30 April 1998 charges against the complainant related to the smuggling of about 1.1 million cigarettes. This was subsequently extended, and the High Court judgement convicted her of participation in the smuggling of 6.6 million cigarettes. The investigation was comprehensive and difficult. Several individuals were involved in the case, including some who were still at large. For this reason, it was feared that the complainant might warn or otherwise contact these individuals, thus obstructing the investigation. Moreover, solitary confinement was terminated as soon as the investigation was over, i.e. on 18 June 1998, even though the period of her solitary confinement did not expire until 23 June 1998. During the 50-day period, both the District and High Courts considered the question of whether the conditions for solitary confinement were met on six occasions - 30 April, 4, 11, 13, 26 and 28 May 1998. Thus, the State party argues, the courts continuously struck a balance between the requirements of the investigation and the needs of the complainant. 4.13On the issue of the complainant’s mental health, the State party emphasizes that only oral information on her psychological state had been produced before the District Court when it made its order on 26 May 1998. Prior to this date neither written nor 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. 4.14On 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.h 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