JUSTICE FOR ALL years without appropriate treatment for his mental condition and with no prospect of reintegrating into society; this had caused him particularly acute hardship and distress of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.78 In several instances, the Court has also clarified that regular transfers to the prison’s hospital cannot be viewed as a solution.79 According to the ECtHR, a lack of appropriate medical care for persons in custody is capable of engaging a State’s responsibility under Art 3.80 In addition, it is not enough for such detainees to be examined and a diagnosis made; instead, it is essential that proper treatment for the problem diagnosed should also be provided81 by qualified staff.82 The Court reiterated in Rooman v. Belgium83 that the mere fact that a detainee has been seen by a doctor and prescribed a certain form of treatment cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the medical assistance was adequate. The authorities must also ensure that: • a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee’s state of health and his or her treatment while in detention; • a diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate; • where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at adequately treating the detainee’s health problems or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis; • the necessary conditions were created for the prescribed treatment to be actually followed through; • medical treatment provided within prison facilities must be appropriate; that is, at a level comparable to that which the State authorities have committed themselves to provide to the population as a whole. Nevertheless, this does not mean that every detainee must be guaranteed the same level of medical treatment that is available in the best health establishments outside prison facilities; and • where the treatment cannot be provided in the place of detention, it must be possible to transfer the detainee to a hospital or to a specialised unit.84 In Rooman v. Belgium, the applicant complained that his compulsory confinement without psychological and psychiatric treatment in the social protection facility in which he had been placed, and the total lack of any prospects of improvement in his situation on account of this absence of treatment, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Art 3 of the Convention. In particular, the applicant complained that he was not receiving any treatment in his native language of German, which is also an official language in Belgium. The authorities responsible for the applicant were content with the excuse that there were no German-speaking specialists in the facility to justify the fact that he was not receiving appropriate treatment. The Court considered that these elements are sufficient to demonstrate that the national authorities failed to provide treatment for the applicant’s health condition and concluded that there was a violation of Art 3 of the Convention in respect of the period from the beginning of 2004 to August 2017. The ECtHR jurisprudence does not consider a detainee’s segregation as amounting to inhuman treatment in itself. In fact, in order to assess whether a violation of Art 3 takes place with regard to solitary confinement, the ECtHR considers the particular conditions of the case, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned. Moreover, the duration of such confinement is analysed by the ECtHR in conjunction with its justification, the need for the measures taken and their proportionality with regard to other possible restrictions, the guarantees offered to the applicant and the measures taken by the authorities to ensure that the applicant’s physical and psychological condition allowed him to remain in isolation.85 Particular attention is paid by the Court towards those 31