In 2016, in accordance with the above procedure, establishment no. 3 separated 1 inmate; establishment no. 6 separated 108 inmates; establishment no. 8 separated 115 inmates; establishment no.11 separated 1 inmate; establishment no. 14 separated 46 inmates; establishment no. 15 separated 38 inmates, establishment no. 17 separated 151 inmates; establishment no. 18 separated 6 inmates; and establishment no. 19 separated 6 inmates. Solitary confinement of inmates without legal basis and in violation of the above procedure was also systematically practised in penitentiary establishments in 2016. Certain inmates have been separated for years in solitary confinement cells in penitentiary establishments nos. 6, 7, and 9. Some of these prisoners have not used long visit at all. One of them has been in solitary confinement since 2005 and serves a life sentence. The European Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and humiliation involved must not in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. Measures depriving a person of his/her liberty may often involve such an element. Under this provision the state must ensure that a person is detained in conditions that are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him/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, his/her health and well-being are adequately secured.73 The Court also observes that when assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of these conditions as well as of specific allegations made by the applicant.74 At the same time, the European Court opined in Pretty v. The United Kingdom75 that the concept of ‘private life’ is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition.  It covers the physical and psychological integrity of a person. It can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual’s physical and social identity. Article 8 also protects the right to personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world.76 The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture underlines that it ‘pays particular attention to the convicts under conditions close to separation, despite the reason for placing them under such conditions (disciplinary reasons, the result of their “dangerous” or “difficult” behaviour, interests of criminal investigation, their personal request). The principle of proportionality requires balance between the requirements of the case and the use of the regime of separate placement of the prisoner, which may have grave results. The mere fact of such a placement may in some cases amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. In case, such a measure must be short-term.’ 77 73 74 75 76 77 See Valašinas v. Lithuania, application no. 44558/98, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 24 July 2011, para. 102; also, Kudła v. Poland, application no. 30210/96, judgment of the para. 94. See Dougoz v. Greece, application no. 40907/98, para. 46, ECHR 2001-II. Pretty v the United Kingdom, application no. 2346/02, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 29 April 2002, para. 61. Burghartz v. Switzerland, application no. 16213/90, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 22 February 1994, para. 47; and Friedl v. Austria, application no.  15225/89, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 31 January 1995 para. 45. The Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, 1998 Report following the visit in Finland, CPC/Inf(96)28). NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM (NPM), 2016 49