42 Special Report to the Storting Document 4:3 (2018–2019) 43 Reception and remand unit. 3) Prison sections without communal rooms Many prisons have sections that lack premises where inmates can socialise. Such sections often hold inmates who are isolated by court order, have been excluded from the company of others for control purposes, have chosen isolation or need more extensive supervision. Such sections are also used for assessing newly admitted inmates. It is common practice for such intake, remand or ­restrictive units without communal rooms to be used as part of the ordinary prison capacity and, hence, to be occupied by inmates who have a right to associate with other inmates. In one prison, 51 of a total of 155 places were located in sections with very limited or no facilities for association with other inmates. Another prison, with a total capacity of 281, had 77 such places. The number of inmates held in isolation is further increased by a high ­utilisation of capacity, because inmates in the ­intake section are ‘queuing up’ for a place in a ­communal section. This state of affairs has also been identified by the ­Correctional Service.136 For example, in several prisons we have visited, inmates who were placed in a restrictive unit based on an administrative decision on exclusion had to wait for weeks after the expiry of the period of exclusion before they were able to return to an ordinary communal section. Some prisons are built in such a way that the ­so-called communal sections lack communal rooms. In several prisons, inmates had to be escorted to other premises or spend time together in the prison corridor. Inmates who get together in the corridors create major ­challenges relating to the security of staff and other inmates. In another prison, contact with other inmates (other than at common mealtimes, in the gym on certain weekdays and during time in the exercise yard) was ­possible for one and a half hours on the prison’s attic floor, four days a week. This was not offered on the remaining three days of the week (Friday, Saturday, Sunday). The Parliamentary Ombudsman has documented in several reports that female inmates have had to serve time in restrictive units because of a shortage of ­available places in the women’s section or because of the absence of a women’s section. In several places it was found that, because the women’s section was smaller, it was more often closed down when a high number of staff were on sick leave or on transport duty. This means that women in such prisons are more frequently exposed to the risk of isolation, simply because they are women. 136 Correctional Service Region South, Kartlegging av innsattes adgang til fellesskap, (’Registration of inmates’ access to the company of other inmates’), letter of 2 May 2014 to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Cell. 6.2 Solitary confinement as a control measure Under Section 37 first paragraph of the Execution of Sentences Act, exclusion may be used as a preventive measure against a number of different situations, ranging from self-harm and inflicting injuries on others, violence, threats and other criminal acts, to causing considerable material damage, disturbing the peace and having a negative influence on the prison environment.137 The Parliamentary Ombudsman has on several ­occasions pointed out the problematic aspects of the legislation on solitary confinement as a control ­measure.138 Section 37 first paragraph (e) of the Execution of Sentences Act, which authorises solitary confinement (‘exclusion’) where ‘necessary in order to... maintain peace, order and security’ in the prison, is especially problematic. It appears to be a catch-all ­provision that fails to clarify what types of behaviour might lead to solitary confinement. Section 37 first paragraph sets the threshold for solitary confinement of inmates to where ‘exclusion’ is deemed to be ‘­necessary’. This condition for solitary confinement is less stringent than what follows from human rights standards ­(‘in exceptional cases and when strictly necessary’). The UN Committee against Torture has also pointed out that the legal basis is not precise enough to allow for judicial control or review, and that the legislation must place stricter limits on the use of solitary ­confinement.139 In its concluding observations on Norway’s report in 2018, the Committee reiterated its concerns ‘That the legal basis for the use and length of solitary confinement continues to be insufficiently precise and may result from discretionary decisions not respecting the principles of proportionality, which prevent the possibility of administrative or judicial supervision and can amount to violations of the Convention’.140 The Committee recommended that Norway ‘Reduce the use of solitary confinement to situations that are strictly necessary and amend the legislative framework in order to limit the use of such confinement to exceptional circumstances’.141 137 The Execution of Sentences Act Section 37 first paragraph (a)–(e). 138 The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s consultation submission of 1 November 2016 on guidelines for exclusion from company pursuant to the Execution of Sentences Act Section 37; the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s written input to the UN Committee against Torture of 22 March 2018. 139 The UN Committee against Torture’s concluding observations on Norway’s combined sixth and seventh periodic report on the implementation of the UN Convention against Torture, 13 December 2012 (CAT/C/NOR/CO/6-7), paragraph 11. 140 The UN Committee against Torture’s concluding observations on Norway’s eighth periodic report on the implementation of the UN Convention against Torture, 5 June 2018 (CAT/C/NOR/CO/8), paragraphs 17 and 18. 141 The UN Committee against Torture’s concluding observations on Norway’s eighth periodic report on the implementation of the UN Convention against Torture, 5 June 2018 (CAT/C/NOR/CO/8), paragraphs 17 and 18.