CAT/C/68/D/817/2017 psychologist. Lastly, the complainant follows a diet that the prison doctor recommended to him on 30 March 2017. 4.15 In response to the recurrent allegations about the complainant’s conditions of detention, including falsified recordings, the General Delegation for Prison Administration and Reintegration of Morocco issued several press releases to refute the allegations. This use of disinformation and the distortion of the facts to mislead public opinion, with the sole aim of putting pressure on the prison administration, is unacceptable. In fact, the prison administration makes every effort to provide the best possible conditions of detention for all prisoners. 4.16 In conclusion, the State party explains that the General Delegation for Prison Administration and Reintegration sees to it that the law is observed in respect of all inmates, while guaranteeing that all of them, without discrimination, are able to exercise all their rights. Additional information from the complainant 5.1 On 12 September 2017, the complainant submitted an update on his situation, stating that it has not improved despite the interim measures requested by the Committee. He remained in solitary confinement 23 out of 24 hours in very harsh conditions. The impact of these conditions was worsened by the fact that the complainant was still extremely weak. He was particularly concerned about the lack of medical care; the insufficiency and inadequacy of his food; the totally unjustified restrictions on his contacts with the outside world; and the fact that he still did not have adequate sleeping arrangements, as he continued to sleep on a concrete block. 5.2 On 20 February 2018, the complainant advised the Committee that his situation had not changed since March 2017. He was still in solitary confinement in unbearable conditions. Referring to the response of the General Delegation for Prison Administration and Reintegration, the complainant expressed surprise at the claim that it was his behaviour and actions that had “caused him to be placed in category A” and that it had been decided, in order to “encourage him to be more disciplined”, to allow him to spend the outdoor recreation period in the company of other inmates instead of spending it alone, as he had done previously; this showed that the complainant had been held in solitary confinement. 5.3 The response of the General Delegation for Prison Administration and Reintegration also stated that the complainant, like all other inmates, was incarcerated under the conditions prescribed by Act No. 23/98. He had been transferred to the newly built Tiflet 2 local prison, a facility with adequate standards of detention that was intended for prisoners convicted in various cases and with different sentences, where he enjoyed all his rights in accordance with legal and regulatory requirements. According to the response of the General Delegation, his conditions of imprisonment could not be considered “solitary confinement”. In fact, he was housed in a well-ventilated, well-lit single-person cell with all the necessary sanitary conditions. He was visited by family members and relatives whenever they came to the facility. He was allowed ample time to communicate with his family and was in regular contact with them by telephone, including his sister, wife, mother, father, brother and mother-in-law. His conditions of detention were determined by a classification system set up by the General Delegation in 2016 to improve the management of its facilities. The system was essentially linked to reintegration objectives based on motivation. 5.4 According to the State party, the complainant’s previous behaviour and actions were the reason for his placement in category A. All information concerning this procedure had been presented to him and he had been informed that it fell within the competence of a specialized commission in accordance with established organizational rules. According to the General Delegation for Prison Administration and Reintegration, however, this classification system was not rigid or definitive, but a flexible and reactive mechanism that depended essentially on positive change in the inmate’s behaviour. In fact, inmates’ behaviour was evaluated every four months in the framework of a procedure to review the initial classification. Accordingly, after monitoring the behaviour of the complainant from the time of his transfer to the Tiflet 2 local prison until April 2017, the prison authorities 6 GE.20-00011