CAT/C/32/D/202/2002 Page 15 ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for her human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, her health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing her with the requisite medical assistance.” 13. 5.9 As to the claim that the District Court only had oral evidence before it when it assessed the continuation of the complainant’s pre-trial detention in solitary confinement on 26 May 1998, the complainant submits that the prison authorities should ex officio have had the complainant examined by a doctor and then requested the Prosecutor to have her removed from solitary confinement, upon learning that she suffered serious psychological harm. In the complainant’s view, the State party’s liability for the violation of articles 1 and 16 began on 15 May 1998 when the Kalundborg Police did not act upon the prison physician’s report in which he considered that: “The inmate exhibited clear signs of mental instability, which can be explained freely on the basis of general knowledge on normal people’s reaction to incarceration and solitary confinement. I assessed that there was a risk that this condition might become worse and that it was important that the inmate’s situation could be resolved as soon as possible.” On 22 May 1998, even though the emergency service physician and crisis therapist described the complainant as “…strongly mentally troubled by the solitary confinement” and “claustrophobic, near-psychotic and deeply distressed”, respectively, the Kalundborg Police still ignored the fact that the complainant was experiencing the harmful effects of her solitary confinement. 5.10 The complainant acknowledges that the nature of the overall criminal operation was serious but emphasises that she was only a peripheral and minor player and thus not likely to have extensive knowledge about the illegal operations, which were organised by her former husband and his accomplices. Moreover, she cooperated with the police and gave them the name of a suspect who the police failed to apprehend 13 She also refers to the case of Price v. United Kingdom, judgment of 10 July 2001 in which the Court decided that “In considering whether treatment is “degrading”, within the meaning of Article 3, one of the factors which the Court will take into account is the question of whether its object was to humiliate and debase the person concerned, although the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3.