Selected topics from 2020 Legal safeguards Even though central authorities have maintained an ongoing dialogue during the pandemic, findings from the investigation suggests that the Correc­ tional Service has found it challenging to adapt the health authorities’ general infection control advice to the prison sector. We also found examples of the introduction of intrusive emergency infection control measures by some municipalities, before central guidelines had been drawn up. Lack of clarity regarding statutory authority and absence of national guidelines adapted to the prison context increase the risk that intrusive measures are introduced locally without an adequate evaluation of proportionality. The Supervisory Boards for the correctional servic­ es did not conduct physical supervision during the period of investigation; however, they had largely continued the processing of individual enquiries from inmates. Alternative methods of supervision had been considered to some degree, but these had not yet been implemented. The restrictions that were imposed upon inmates indicated that arrangements should have been in place for effectively working supervisory bodies, also during the pandemic. Conclusion The pandemic created an ambiguous situation, particularly in its initial phase. The measures that were implemented must be considered in light of the available information about the virus and level of infection in the community at the time when the measures were introduced. The Correctional Service succeeded in avoiding major infection out­ breaks in prisons and introduced a broad spectrum of measures to protect the rights of inmates during the pandemic. At the same time, the Ombudsman’s investigation concluded that there had been major variations in the inmates’ access to compensatory measures during this difficult period. The investi­ 5 https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/en/torturforebygging/ 25 gation indicated that many inmates experienced a high degree of isolation during the period. It is particularly concerning that intrusive measures such as quarantine and solitary confinement were introduced based on unclear statutory regulations, and that inmates in quarantine and solitary confinement did not receive adequate supervision from the healthcare services. The purpose of the investigation was to contribute to a reduction in the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment in case of a possible new pandemic outbreak. In the report, feedback regarding eight central issues was given to the responsible authorities. These concerned, inter alia, the need for close coordination and dialogue between the Correctional Service and the health authorities. The report from the investigation was distributed to the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, the Ministry of Health and Care Services, the Correc­ tional Service and the Directorate of Health. It was also made available to all prisons and transitional houses in all five regions of the Correctional Service. In addition, findings from the investigation were shared with national preventive mechanism agencies in other countries. The report is also available on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s website.5