27 that undue restrictions in visiting regimes may constitute a violation of the right to humane treatment.108 Similarly, the European Court on Human Rights has acknowledged that detention, likewise any other measure depriving a person of his liberty, entails inherent limitations on [the detainees’] private and family life. However, it is an essential part of a detainee’s right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him in maintaining contact with his close family.109 98. This Court acknowledges that Harrison’s Point Temporary Prison was not designed to be a permanent detention center. Rather, it had to be reconfigured to become a prison due to the fire that destroyed Glendairy Prison on March 29, 2005. A new allegedly state-of-theart permanent prison is currently under construction, which will allegedly have capacity for 1,250 prisoners, and was due to be completed in August 2007.110 As of the date of this Judgment, the Court has not been informed as to whether this prison facility has been completed or if the alleged victims have been transferred to it. 99. The Court also recognizes that the State is implementing a number of policies that will allegedly improve not only the conditions of detention of its prisoners, but also its penal system as a whole. For example, the State has asserted that it is attempting to address overcrowding through the Penal System Reform Act, which provides courts with a broader range of sentencing options. This, according to the State, will be accompanied by a “philosophical shift” towards a “policy based on the principles of restorative justice, with incarceration being reserved for the most serious offenders and those who pose a genuine threat to public safety.”111 Additionally, the State asserted that it will continue to implement an education component in its new prison, as it had previously done in Glendairy Prison. Finally, the State assured the Court that “the new prison facility will greatly improve the services available to, and living conditions of, prisoners in Barbados.” 100. Although the Court appreciates the stated political will of the State to improve the conditions of detention of its prisoners and reform its penal system, the fact remains that the alleged victims in this case have already been detained at Harrison’s Point Temporary Prison for more than two and a half years, where they have been subjected to conditions of detention that fail to respect their integrity and inherent dignity. A future change in their regime is not only desirable, but necessary; however, it will not give them back the time they have spent in deplorable conditions, with no privacy and little to no contact with their loved ones. 101. In this sense, Harrison’s Point Temporary Prison has now been in operation for over two years, and in that time, prison conditions have not improved nor has the new prison under construction been finished. Therefore, Messrs. Boyce, Joseph and Huggins have remained in inhuman conditions for an unreasonable amount of time. Even under the circumstances described by the State, the absolute lack of privacy, coupled with an extremely deficient exercise regime and a complete disregard for the necessity of actual, not virtual, interaction with family members and friends, are conditions of detention that are 108 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 58; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 84, para. 154; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 24, para. 315, and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas V. Perú. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 221. Cf. also UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, supra note 84, Rules 10 and 11. 109 ECHR, Case of Bagiński V. Poland, Judgment of October 11, 2005, Application No. 37444/97, para. 89. 110 Cf. Affidavit of John Nurse, supra note 88, (folio 6563), and Report and Opinion of Prof. Andrew Coyle (case file of appendices to the written final submissions of the parties, folio 6787). 111 Cf. Final written submissions of the State (merits case file, volume III, folio 888).