Detention: solitary confinement There is uncertainty as to whether solitary confinement by itself constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.113 The HRC has expressed concern about the use of solitary confinement for incarcerated persons following conviction.114 It has commented that solitary confinement is “a harsh penalty with serious psychological consequences”115 and is only justifiable in case of urgent need and for limited periods only. It may otherwise amount to a breach of article 10(1) of the ICCPR. The Committee Against Torture has also identified solitary confinement as a subject of concern, and has said that strict conditions of solitary confinement may, in certain circumstances, amount to acts prohibited by article 16 of the CAT.116 Whether solitary confinement constitutes torture will depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case.117 In each case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned.118 The European Commission on Human Rights has declared that absolute sensory isolation combined with absolute social isolation constitutes inhuman treatment for which no security requirements can form a justification.119 Non-voluntary solitary confinement should only ever be used as a punishment if proper processes have been followed. It should never be for prolonged periods and there should be the opportunity for independent review. There may be persons with special characteristics 113 Lene Wendland A Handbook on State Obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture APT Geneva May 2002 at 25. 114 See for example Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Denmark 31/10/2000 CCPR/CO/70/DNK at [12]; Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Thailand 28/7/2005 CCPR/CO/84/THA at [16]. 115 Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Denmark 31/10/2000 CCPR/CO/70/DNK at [12]. 116 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture: New Zealand 11/06/2004 CAT/C/CR/32/4 at [5(d)] 117 See the discussion in Taunoa v Attorney-General (2004) 7 HRNZ 379 (report of first judgment made on 7 April 2004 – judgment was recalled and reissued on 2 September 2004) at [266] – [267] and [316]. 118 Esslin, Baader and Raspe v Federal Republic of Germany No 7572/76, 14 DR 64 at 109 (1978). 119 Esslin, Baader and Raspe v Federal Republic of Germany Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights XXI (1978) at 418. 85