detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance.”372 The European Regional System 2 While it retains the power to make on-site visits, in its assessment of the conditions of detention the Court has increasingly come to rely on the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), the regional visiting body established under the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.373 Recently, the Court has extended its examination from the material conditions of detention to the underlying prison regime.374 The decision in Van der Ven v the Netherlands demonstrates this new approach.375 The applicant was held in a high-security prison, and the restrictions imposed in the high-security prison had provoked a deep, and medically confirmed, depression. He was subjected to routine body searches, including anal searches, during weekly cell inspections, and before and after open visits, and visits to the dentist or hairdresser. These searches were not in response to a concrete security need, and did not result from the applicant’s conduct. Taking into consideration the fact that the applicant was already subject to a large number of security measures, KudBa v Poland, no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI, judgement of 26 October 2000, §94. See also Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine (2005), op. cit.; McGlinchey and Others v UK, no. 50390/99, ECHR 2003-V, judgement of 29 April 2003; Kadiķis v Latvia, no. 62393/00, judgement of 4 May 2006; Mamedova v Russia, no. 7064/05, judgement of 1 June 2006. 373 For example, in Aerts v Belgium the Court explicitly considered the report produced by the CPT following its visit to the prison in question. The report severely criticised the conditions of detention, noting that the standard of care fell below the minimum acceptable from an ethical and humanitarian viewpoint, and carried an undeniable risk of a deterioration of mental health. Nonetheless, the Court held that, in that instance, there was insufficient evidence to establish “conclusively” that the conditions resulted in suffering contrary to Article 3: Aerts v Belguim (1998), op. cit., §§65–67. CPT reports were used to greater effect in Dougoz v Greece, where it was found that the conditions in which the applicant was held while awaiting expulsion amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. These conditions included significant overcrowding, a lack of beds or bedding (some detainees were sleeping in corridors), insufficient sanitary facilities, and scarcity of food. Once again, the Court did not undertake its own on-site visit, but instead relied upon a CPT report on the police station and detention centre in question, which concluded that the accommodation and detention regime were unsuitable for long periods of detention. The CPT had even felt it necessary to renew its visit to these places of detention. The Court considered that this supported the claims advanced by the applicant, and found a violation of Article 3: Dougoz v Greece, no. 40907/98, ECHR 2001-II, judgement of 6 March 2001. See also Peers v Greece (2001), op. cit. 374 This approach was developed notably in a series of cases against Italy. See, for example, Messina v Italy, no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V, decision of 8 June 1999: Indelicato v Italy (2001), op. cit.; Ganci v Italy, no. 41576/98, ECHR 2003-XI, judgement of 20 September 2001; and Bonura v Italy, no. 57360/00, judgement of 30 May 2002. 375 Van der Ven v the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II, judgement of 4 February 2003. 372 78