Notes 33 Incommunicado detention involves the detainee being held without access to a lawyer, doctor and family members. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has proposed that this form of detention be declared illegal, as it is “the most important determining factor as to whether an individual is at risk of torture” and called on States to release all persons held incommunicado without delay (Report by the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1999) UN doc. A/54/426, par. 42; Same, 1995 Report UN doc. E/CN.4/1995/34, par. 926). Successive resolutions of the UN Commission on Human Rights have reiterated this stance and stated that prolonged incommunicado detention can in itself constitute a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (see for example Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1997/38, 1998/37 and 1999/32). The UN Human Rights Committee called on States to make provisions against incommunicado detention (General Comment 20), and in considering individual cases involving incommunicado detention for varying periods of time found a violation of Articles 10 and/or 7 of the ICCPR (in many cases the applicant’s incommunicado detention was accompanied by other deprivations. See, for example: de Polay v. Peru (1997) Communication 577/1994; Mukong v. Cameroon (1994) Communication 458/1991; Gilboa v. Uruguay (1985) Communication 147/1983). The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a breach of Article 6 protections where detainees were held incommunicado for 24 hours in one case and 48 hours in another (Averil v. UK, ECHR 212, [2001] 31 EHRR 36; John Murray v. UK, ECHR 3, [1996] 22 EHRR 29). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights found a violation of the prohibition against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment where a detainee was held incommunicado for 36 days, and declared that this form of detention, in itself, may constitute a violation of human rights law (Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, Judgement of 30 May, 1999.). 34 Ezeh and Connors v. UK, Judgement of 9/10/2003, (violation of Article 6(3)); Whitfield and others v. UK., Judgement of 12/7/2005 (violation of Article 6(1) and 6(3)c .) 35 UN Human Rights Committee (2001) A/56/156, Session of 3/11/2000. 36 See CPT reports, particularly report re Denmark (1991 para.29; 1997; 2001); Norway (1994; 1996; 2006); Sweden (1995 paras.19-27). 37 CPT/Inf (2002) 18, at para.39. 38 In the UK, for example, see: Dora Rickford and Kimmett Edgar, Troubled Inside: Responding the Mental Health Needs of Men in Prison, Prison Reform Trust, 2005, in particular chapter 5, and HMCIP report, The Mental Health of Prisoners, A thematic review of the care and support of prisoners with mental health needs, October 2007.; In the US, see: The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons: Confronting Confinement, June 2006. See also Prison Reform International (2003) Training Manual no. 1: Human Rights and Vulnerable Prisoners. 39 Victor Rosario Congo v. Ecuador, Case 11.427, Report No. 63/99, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 475 (1998). April 13, 1999 para.58; See also ECtHR cases cited below 40 Recommendation concerning Custody and Treatment of Dangerous Prisoners (No. R (82) 17) 41 Shalev, S. (2007). ‘The power to classify: avenues into a supermax prison’ in: Downes, D., Rock, P., Chinkin, C. and Gearty, C. (Eds.) Crime, Social Control and Human Rights: From moral panics to states of denial, Devon: Willan Publishing, pp. 107-119. See also Briggs et al. (2003) ‘The effects of supermaximum security prisons on aggregate levels of institutional violence’, Criminology, Vol.41 (4) pp 1341-1376. 42 See for example the ECtHR judgements in Ensslin, Badder and Raspe v FRG , DR 14 (1978); X v FRG, Application 6038/73 Coll. 44 (1973). 43 Mathew v the Netherlands, Judgement of 29/9/2005 at Para. 199. See also CPT 2nd General Report CPT/Inf (92)3 par. 56 44 Human Rights Committee, Concluding Remarks on Denmark. 31/10/2000. CCPR/CO/70/DNK 45 General Comment 21/44, of 6 April, 1992. 46 CPT, 2nd General Report, 1992 par. 56. 47 M v UK, application 9907/82 DR 35 (1983) 36 Sourcebook on solitary confinement: The decision to place prisoners and detainees in solitary confinement