Special Report to the Storting Document 4:3 (2018–2019) 46 Findings from our visits also confirm that inmates are held in isolation for long periods. During a visit in 2017, we found that, for two years running, there had been 19 incidents of exclusion from the company of other inmates pursuant to Section 37 of the Execution of Sentences Act that lasted for more than 15 consecutive days. During a visit to another prison the same year, we found that two inmates had been isolated virtually without interruption since July 2013 and April 2014, respectively.157 We have also found instances of inmates who have been held in isolation for a very long time because their section lacked activities or communal premises. In one prison, we found that inmates had been held in a section with such limited possibility of associating with other inmates that they were isolated for more than 22 hours a day for four of seven days a week. Inmates we spoke with in that section had been held there for weeks, some for months, and one for more than a year.158 Such practices are not reflected in the Correctional Service’s figures because they are not based on any administrative decision on complete or partial exclusion. The same applies to inmates who are held in isolation on their own request without having signed a special declaration to that effect and whose confinement is thus not based on an administrative decision. As a consequence of this, the prisons also fail to report such solitary confinement as complete or partial exclusion in accordance with the mandatory deadlines set out in Section 37 fifth and sixth paragraph of the Execution of Sentences Act. This means that no overview of the de facto extent of prolonged solitary confinement is available to the public or the governing authorities. It also means that the regional correctional services and the Directorate have no possibility of following up the extent of solitary confinement in individual prisons. Some inmates are also held in isolation in security cells for a very long time. This is a particularly intrusive form of solitary confinement. The Directorate of the ­Norwegian Correctional Service’s figures show that, during the period 2015–2018, there were 18 instances of inmates being confined to a security cell for more than six days. The longest period of confinement was 32 days and occurred in 2016. The same inmate was placed in a security cell for a further ten days, one and a half months later. In 2018, there were four ­administrative decisions covering a period of more than six days, the longest of which was for 16 days. During our visits, we have also seen cases of prolonged solitary confinement in security cells. In one prison, the longest stay lasted for as much as 12 days. In several other prisons, we have found inmates confined to a security cell for four to six days. ‘[In] at least one instance this year, an inmate had been continuously isolated in section Z-East for several consecutive months. In another instance, an inmate had recently been transferred temporarily to hospital after prolonged isolation in section Z-East. It emerged that, in both the above instances, the inmates had a very low level of ­functioning and that their state of health had gradually deteriorated. At the time of our visit, a third inmate had been confined by court order for nearly six consecutive weeks in section Z-East. None of the above had access to meaningful human contact in a way or to an extent that could be deemed to constitute an interruption of isolation or any noteworthy effort at compensatory measures’.159 157 The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report after its visit to Ila Detention and Security Prison, 6–9 March 2017, p. 28. 158 The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report after its visit to Bergen Prison 2–4 May 2018, pp. 25–27. 159 The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report after its visit to Ullersmo Prison, 29–31 August 2017, p. 25 ff. 47 Main findings Solitary confinement and restrictions on association with other inmates are widely used in Norwegian prisons. Some parts of this practice are in contravention of international human rights standards. This applies in particular to solitary confinement that cannot be ascribed to the individual inmate’s behaviour, but is exclusively a result of practical or financial challenges in the prison. These challenges are related to the absence in Norwegian legislation of rules that entitle inmates to at least eight hours out-of-cell time a day and to pursue meaningful activities in premises that are adapted for association between inmates. On some points, the threshold for use of solitary confinement is set too low in Norwegian legislation. Solitary confinement may be used as a control measure when necessary to maintain ‘peace, order and security’. This does not reflect that solitary confinement must only be used in exceptional cases. The high incidence of self-isolation in Norwegian ­prisons gives cause for concern, and too little ­systematic and targeted effort is being put into preventing isolation caused by fear and insecurity among inmates. Self-isolation is largely not subject to administrative decisions, and is therefore not reflected in the figures. Norwegian legislation allows for prolonged solitary confinement, contrary to human rights standards. The absence of strict and clear limits for how long an inmate can be held in isolation is very serious, as the risk of harmful effects associated with prolonged isolation is particularly high. Our findings show that several inmates are held in isolation for months, some for years. Prolonged solitary confinement in sections without communal premises is often not based on administrative decisions, and is therefore not reflected in the official figures.