EPLN, the French section of the International Prison Watch (OIP) and Dr Sharon Shalev (University of Oxford) submitted a third-party intervention in the case of Faid v. France (no. 316/24, communicated on 3 September 2024).
The case concerns a prisoner whose conditions of detention include isolation, night waking, frequent body searches and strip searches before and after each visit, access to visits only through a hygiaphone, limited access to a telephone, and increased security measures when he is escorted out of prison (including being handcuffed and hooded and the presence of armed officers wearing balaclavas).
The applicant was placed in solitary confinement in 2018 by the investigating judge in charge of the case, and in 2021 under administrative solitary confinement.
>> Read the full submission in French & ITS ENGLISH translation
Given the potentially irreversible harm to the health and integrity of individuals subjected to solitary confinement we argue that the Court should take this opportunity to clarify its approach to such practices.
In our submission, we review extensive scientific research demonstrating the severe psychological and physiological effects of solitary confinement, underlining the urgency of this clarification.
This need is also all the more pressing in light of the French Ministry of Justice’s recent announcement to introduce a special detention regime targeting prisoners deemed “most dangerous” and “linked to drug-related organised crime”, involving “total isolation” and heightened security measures, including permanent surveillance.
In particular, we argued that the Court should:
- Define the concept of “sensory isolation” to which a prisoner is subjected during confinement
This requires a concrete examination of the sensory stimuli actually available under a given detention regime and the material conditions of detention, as well as a detailed assessment of the nature and extent of human contact provided.
In particular, the Court should take into consideration the position of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, who identifies the deprivation of sensory stimulation as a factor contributing to a “torturous environment”.
Moreover, when assessing the degree of social isolation, the reference point should be meaningful social contact (as opposed to routine interactions with prison staff or limited contact with other prisoners or visitors that does not permit direct human engagement).
- Define the concept of “prolonged” solitary confinement
The Court’s current casuistic approach creates uncertainty about what qualifies as “prolonged” solitary confinement. To provide clarity and coherence, the Court should consider the internationally accepted standard of 15 days as a reference point for defining prolonged isolation, applicable to both preventive and disciplinary isolation. Indeed, the fact that solitary confinement may be imposed for punitive or preventive purposes does not lessen the severity of the experience for those subjected to it.