64 After its visit to Oslo Prison in 2018, the CPT wrote that inmates at acute risk of self-harm or suicide were placed completely naked in security cells. The ­committee recommended that this should never happen: ‘in the view of the CPT, such a practice could be ­considered to amount to degrading treatment’. 201 In a number of reports from its visits, the Parliamentary Ombudsman has also emphasised that inmates at risk of committing suicide must not be placed in security cells naked. Where there is an acute risk of self-harm or suicide, the Parliamentary Ombudsman has ­recommended that rip-resistant clothing be made available. Rip-resistant clothing can be uncomfortable to wear and perceived as stigmatising. Such clothing should therefore never be used as replacement for ordinary clothes as a matter of routine, but only as a last resort to prevent inmates with an acute suicidal risk being confined to a security cell naked. Most prisons visited by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in latter years now have rip-resistant tunics available. Despite the CPT’s recommendations and the views made by the Parliamentary Ombudsman on the same subject, after the CPT’s visit, the Directorate of the ­Norwegian Correctional Service has amended the guidelines to the Execution of Sentences Act so that it is now acceptable to place inmates in security cells in a state of nakedness if ‘it is un­reasonable for safety reasons to let the inmates keep their clothes’.202 This amendment does not address the right of ­particularly vulnerable inmates to be treated with ­dignity. The amendment is contrary to the ­recommendations that the ­Parliamentary ­Ombudsman has repeatedly put forward and it has not been ­introduced on reasonable grounds given that the issue of safety can be addressed using rip-resistant clothing. On the whole, the design of security cells entails a high degree of sensory deprivation and limitation of the inmate’s autonomy. It also entails a clear risk to health. Special Report to the Storting Document 4:3 (2018–2019) 9.2 Follow-up of inmates in security cells and restraint beds The conditions described above show that the harmful elements of solitary confinement are particularly prominent when inmates are placed in security cells. The harmful effects of isolation have been described ­previously in this report (see Chapter 4 Solitary ­confinement is an intrusive measure and detrimental to health). What is generally known about isolation and the risk of suicide, self-harm and the development of serious mental health disorders indicates that good procedures must be in place for frequent checks and care of individuals who are placed in a security cell. The duty to bring any stay in a security cell to an end as quickly as possible also warrants stringent requirements for following up the inmate.203 The Execution of Sentences Act does not contain any requirements for follow-up and supervision by staff in connection with the use of security cells or restraint beds. It is clear from Section 38 that the measure must be strictly necessary and that the Correctional Service ‘shall constantly consider whether grounds for maintaining the measure exist’. This entails a duty to follow up inmates regularly and closely. According to the Directorate of the Norwegian ­Correctional Service’s guidelines: ‘Security cells and restraint beds must not be used longer than absolute necessary, and the inmate shall receive the necessary attention and care for as long as the measure is upheld. The staff shall check on the inmate at least once every hour. Continuous monitoring shall be initiated if warranted by the situation. Use of a restraint bed shall be continuously monitored’.204 Our visits show that most of the supervision during the use of security cells consist simply of a staff member looking through a window or hatch to check if the inmate shows any signs of life. Both the operating procedures and the supervision protocols indicate that monitoring in many places is limited to checking for movement or breathing. 201 Council of Europe: Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), Report to the Norwegian Government on the visit to Norway 2018, CPT/Inf (2019) 1, paragraph 110. 202 Directorate of the Norwegian Correctional Service (2002). Guidelines to the Execution of Sentences Act and its Regulations, section 38.7.2. Revised version of 15 March 2019 203 Stang, J & Østberg, B (2006). Innsattes forslag til å forebygge isolasjon i sikkerhetscelle (‘Proposals from inmates on the prevention of isolation in security cells’). Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 43, 30–33. See Table 2, p. 32. 204 Directorate of the Norwegian Correctional Service (2002). Guidelines to the Execution of Sentences Act and its Regulations, section 38.7. Revised version of 15 March 2019. 65 Apart from that, the supervision protocols show only brief exchanges on practical matters such as food or ­medication. There are few examples in the supervision protocols of inmates having been followed up actively, motivated in conversations or otherwise given human support or means to end the stay in the security cell. Among other things, we have pointed out in several reports that, where reasonable in terms of security, security cell inmates should have the possibility of ­accessing open air, particularly when their stay is of more than 24 hours’ duration.205 The possibility of being out in the open air will also contribute to a degree of normality, establish good communication and ensure the quickest possible return to an ordinary prison cell. ‘They came every 30 minutes, but when you have been there for a long time, you lose all track of time. I learnt to listen for steps and calculate when they would return’. Inmate interviewed by the NPM As a rule, only senior prison officers are permitted to unlock the cell door. Any conversation with an inmate during supervision will therefore take place through the hatch or vent in the door. The practice is even stricter in some prisons in that only the senior prison officer is permitted to open the hatch. Communication between supervisory staff and inmates must then take place by making signs or shouting through a reinforced glass pane. 12:10: Lay on his right side. Asked inmate whether he would like a slice of bread. The inmate did not answer the question. Excerpt from security cell protocol ‘They just come and look through a glass pane, but they don’t speak with you. They don’t ask how you are’. Inmate interviewed by the NPM Our findings show that practice varies between prisons as regards how often senior prison officers visit the security cells. As a rule, this happens once or twice per shift. The intervals are in any case several hours long. In one prison, the protocol showed that in most cases conversations with the senior prison officer took place once a day. This meant that there was in fact an interval of 24 hours between each assessment of whether the measure should be lifted. In our experience, based on our own observations as well as reviews of supervision protocols, the lack of human contact and positive sensory input can create ­precarious situations for security cell inmates. In one prison, the supervision protocol showed that, after a lengthy period of time, one security cell inmate had smeared the cell window with faeces. Despite this, the inmate was not permitted to take a shower until ­approximately 24 hours later. It was clear from the ­supervisory protocol that the inmate both ate and slept in the cell with the ­window and door smeared with faeces. The same serious conditions have been found to exist in other prisons. In some of these cases, inmates have had to wait long for the cell to be cleaned, even if they have requested that this be done. 13:47: The inmate is lying on his back on the right-hand side of the cell. He has written on the wall with faeces, thrown some faeces under the door. In general, a lot of faeces on the walls. 26 degrees Celsius. Excerpt from security cell protocol 205 The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s reports after its visits to Vadsø Prison 10–11 May 2016 p. 14; to Trondheim Prison 17–19 March 2015, p. 9; to Åna Prison 13-15 November 2017, p. 28; to Ullersmo Prison 29–31 November 2017, p. 23.