CAT/C/68/D/817/2017 well-lit single-person cell with proper sanitary conditions; (c) the duration of family visits is sufficient; (d) the complainant is in category A because of his previous behaviour and actions; (e) this regime is not rigid, but depends on the inmate’s behaviour; (f) inmates’ behaviour is reassessed every four months; and (g) to “encourage him to be more disciplined”, the complainant is now allowed to spend his outdoor time in the company of other inmates. 8.4 The Committee observes that the complainant’s counsel, who requested a regular reassessment of the complainant’s detention regime, allegedly have not received a response from the State party to that request. 8.5 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which solitary confinement may amount to a violation of article 16 of the Convention, depending on the circumstances of the case and taking into account the particular conditions of solitary confinement, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effect on the person concerned. 10 The Committee recalls its recommendation that solitary confinement and seclusion should be used as measures of last resort, for as short a time as possible, under strict supervision and with the possibility of judicial review. 11 The Committee also refers to rule 44 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), where solitary confinement is defined as the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact, and prolonged solitary confinement as solitary confinement for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days.12 In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant was placed in solitary confinement for a long period of time. It also notes the complainant’s contention that he was confined to his cell for 23 hours a day during his period of solitary confinement, with 1 hour a day for exercise and the opportunity to take a shower once a week. The Committee further notes the complainant’s assertion that he was particularly vulnerable at the time, as he slept on the floor, without a mattress, and suffered from health problems and malnutrition. The Committee notes the State party’s arguments that the complainant was placed alone in a cell owing to disciplinary sanctions, that the conditions of his imprisonment were ordinary and humane, and that he was entitled to regular contact with his family. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence concerning certain basic guarantees that must be applied to all persons deprived of their liberty in order to prevent them from being subjected to torture or ill-treatment. These guarantees include the right of detainees promptly to receive independent legal assistance and independent medical assistance and to contact relatives. In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s assertion that solitary confinement and the State party’s failure to provide clarification in this regard have caused him suffering and physical harm. The Committee observes that the complainant’s detention regime amounted to solitary confinement, even if it was not classified as such under Moroccan law. The Committee is of the view that the complainant’s solitary confinement and its duration, which were aggravated by the lack of periodic monitoring of this regime, his limited contact with his family and his irregular access to health care, were not proportional to the alleged disciplinary objective. The Committee therefore finds that the solitary confinement imposed on the complainant constituted a violation by the State party of its obligations under articles 16 and 2 (1), read in conjunction with articles 1 and 11, of the Convention. 8.6 The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that the State party did not provide him with redress for his ill-treatment in detention, in violation of his rights under article 14 of the Convention. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 and notes that article 14 is applicable to all victims of torture or ill-treatment. The Committee further recalls that article 14 not only recognizes the right to fair and adequate compensation, but also requires States parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture or ill-treatment obtains redress. The Committee considers that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation of the victim and measures to guarantee that there is no 10 11 12 10 A.A. v. Denmark (CAT/C/49/D/412/2010), para. 7.4. Vogel v. New Zealand (CAT/C/62/D/672/2015), para. 7.3. See also A/66/268, para. 26. GE.20-00011