Grounds which were accepted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as justifying solitary confinement include: the prisoner’s extremely dangerous behaviour47, the prisoner’s “ability to manipulate situations and encourage other prisoners to acts of non-discipline”48 and the prisoner’s safety49. The “general situation regarding terrorist climate at the time” was also found to justify severe security measures, including solitary confinement50. Ten years later, in 1992, the Court somewhat narrowed this view when it stated that “the undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime, particularly with regard to terrorism, cannot result in limits placed on the protection to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of individuals”51. These protections are not dependent on the individual’s conduct: “The Court is well aware of the immense difficulties faced by States in modern times in protecting their communities from terrorist violence. However, even in these circumstances, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim’s conduct”52. In a more recent case, whilst the Court reaffirmed that the absolute prohibition against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment extends even to the “most difficult circumstances, including the fight against terrorism and organised crime”, and that solitary confinement must never be imposed on prisoners indefinitely, it ruled that holding a man who, at the time, was “considered to be the most dangerous terrorist in the world” in solitary confinement for 8 years and two months did not constitute a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR53. But the Court’s willingness to accept that prolonged solitary confinement may be justified in exceptional cases, particularly those involving offences against the State, does not extend more generally. The placement of a prisoner in solitary confinement because he could not adapt to an ordinary prison setting was not accepted as sufficient grounds, and was found to constitute inhuman treatment in breach of Article 354. A breach of Article 3 was also found where a regime of strict solitary confinement was imposed for more than three years on a former Death Row prisoner yet “the government have not invoked any particular security reasons ... and have not mentioned why it was not possible to revise the regime55”. Hence, while it is generally accepted that in the prison setting short-term solitary confinement may sometimes be necessary, its use is subjected to close scrutiny to ascertain whether it serves a legitimate purpose, and is absolutely necessary in any given case. Once it is established that the placement of a prisoner in solitary confinement has been undertaken in accordance with due process requirements and serves a legitimate purpose, the physical conditions and regime afforded to isolated prisoners are addressed. These are the subject of the following chapter. 34 Sourcebook on solitary confinement: The decision to place prisoners and detainees in solitary confinement