NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN National Preventive Mechanism ANNUAL REPORT 2020 22 Routine solitary confinement of new inmates One of the most intrusive infection control measures was the implementation of routines for exclusion of inmates from the community (solitary confinement). The Ombudsman considered whether this was in accordance with human rights standards. In particu­ lar, the Ombudsman examined the introduction of routine solitary confinement of new inmates by the imposition of fourteen days quarantine. Exclusion and solitary confinement The Execution of Sentences Act Section 37 permits a prison to determine that an inmate, wholly or partially shall be “excluded from the company” of other inmates. This can be imposed if it is deemed necessary to prevent inmates from continuing to influence the environment in the prison in a particularly negative manner, to prevent inmates from harming themselves, acting violently, threatening others, to prevent significant material damage, to prevent criminal acts or to maintain peace, order and security in the prison. During the pandemic it was decided that all new inmates should be “wholly excluded” from the company of other inmates for fourteen days. According to the Correctional Service’s guidelines, “wholly excluded” from other inmates means that the inmate shall not be in the company of other inmates at all. Complete exclusion under normal circum­ stances thereby represents solitary confine­ ment as defined in the Mandela Rules. In this article the term “solitary confinement” therefore refers to this form of exclusion. As a consequence of the measure that was introduced on the national level via a Circular from the Correctional Service on 3 April 2020, a large number of inmates were placed in quarantine with­ out symptoms of COVID-19 and without confirmed exposure to a possible infection situation. In the view of the Ombudsman, which is further substantiated in the report2 from the investigation, infection control considerations do not provide suf­ ficient grounds for solitary confinement insofar as the measure is not related to the inmate’s conduct. Moreover, the Ombudsman examined whether the measure was in accordance with human rights requirements with respect to proportionality and necessity. In the Circular from the Correctional Service, no instruction to consider less intrusive measures was given, such as health assessment procedures or testing. The Directorate of Health had not found that exclusion from the prison community was necessary to maintain infection control standards. In the Ombudsman’s view, it is problematic that the Correctional Service chose to act against the advice of health professionals in this case. Solitary confinement imposed due to infection control considerations should always be based upon medical necessity. New inmates are in a particularly vulnerable situation and have among other things, an in­ creased risk of suicide. Therefore, it is concerning that many of the respondents in our survey stated that they had limited access to compensatory initiatives, for example virtual visits, during the time they were placed in quarantine. In the survey, only around half of the respondents who stated they had been placed in solitary 2 Read the full report here: https://www.sivilombudsmannen. no/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Norwegian-NPM-reporton-Covid-19_revised-versjon_2.pdf