21 Selected topics from 2015 " The NPM’s visits to five prisons in 2015 have shown that providing a satisfactory activity programme for all inmates poses significant challenges for the prisons " Special Rapporteur on Torture have also expressed grave concern about the harmful effects of solitary confinement. With respect to short-term use of solitary confinement, the ECtHR and the CPT both strongly emphasise that the competent authorities implement measures to compensate for the negative effects of solitary confinement. The CPT has recommended that concrete measures be implemented in instances of long-term solitary confinement in order to change the situation that led to the solitary confinement. During its prison visits, the NPM has found that the prisons have implemented certain activation measures for people in solitary confinement. Several of the prisons have employed activity staff with responsibility for oneto-one follow-up of inmates in solitary confinement. Unfortunately, the measures often appear to be rather unsystematic and are vulnerable to budget cuts. The use of long-term solitary confinement as a control measure has been strongly criticised in international law, and the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Mandela Rules) state that solitary confinement in excess of 15 days is prohibited. However, Norwegian legislation currently allows complete exclusion from the company of others for up to one year at a time.3 Although such long-term exclusion is very uncommon, the NPM found during its visits in 2015 some cases of exclusion exceeding 14 days and in individual cases even months and years. This gives cause for concern, and it is important that the legal basis for solitary confinement in the Execution of Sentences Act is assessed in light of the provisions on solitary confinement set out in the Mandela Rules. 3 Execution of Sentences Act Section 37. Activity programme and solitary confinement at the police immigration detention centre Similar challenges were also identified during last year’s visit to the police immigration detention centre at Trandum. The main finding was that the overall level of control at the detention centre was perceived as being too invasive, and measures were recommended to ensure compliance with human rights requirements for necessity and proportionality. Among other things, measures were needed to strengthen the organised activity programme at the detention centre, particularly for long-term detainees. At the detention centre, solitary confinement took place in cells that had less furnishings than prison cells. Some detainees were held in solitary confinement for a long time, especially following a rebellion in March 2015. As many as 24 administrative decisions involved exclusion from company for more than four days. The longest stay in solitary confinement lasted 23.5 days. The administrative decisions in these cases did not include information about why solitary confinement was to be upheld or whether less invasive measures for maintaining safety had been assessed. Activity programmes and conditions similar to solitary confinement at mental health care institutions During visits to three mental health care institutions in 2015, challenges were also identified in relation to activity programmes and conditions similar to solitary confinement. During its visits, the NPM reviewed the hospitals’ activity programmes. Examples of activities included trips outside the hospital, film nights, music group, cooking, arts and crafts, communal meetings on current affairs topics and organised workout sessions. During its visits, the