66 ‘They put me in this section ­because I smear things with faeces. With those who make trouble, fight and are mean. When I asked why, they said “because you are ill”. But I say that I need help. Not locking up. Here, I am locked up 24 hours a day. No air, nothing’. Special Report to the Storting Document 4:3 (2018–2019) We have also found examples of supervision not being documented, and of pages being missing from the log. Furthermore, we have found several instances of ­security cell inmates who have no possibility of ­contacting a lawyer. Requests to do so have in some cases been recorded in the protocol, but the inmate has been told to wait until s/he is let out of the security cell. That the inmate is denied the possibility of ­contacting a lawyer during such an intrusive measure as use of a security cell represents heightens the risk of integrity ­violations and undermines the inmate’s legal ­safeguards. Inmate interviewed by the NPM In one case, an inmate was placed in a security cell ­after having made what appeared to be a not very ­serious remark in front of an officer. He stayed calm in the security cell for 24 hours, after which he smeared the cell with faeces. He appeared to become ­increasingly ill during the stay. It took 12 days before the inmate was removed from the security cell and ­transferred to another prison. In other cases the supervision protocols have described inmates who have seriously harmed themselves. The examples show the extremely detrimental effects that confinement in a security cell can have, even after a relatively brief stay. They also show that it can take much too long to receive assistance to reintegrate these persons. ‘They found out that I had ­suicidal thoughts. I was hand-cuffed and ­taken down. It was in the evening, after the health service staff had left. That they choose to put you in a security cell that is so depressive, I’ll never be able to understand. You sit there with the light on all the time because you can’t turn it off. Just makes you three times worse in the head’. Inmate interviewed by the NPM As far as the Parliamentary Ombudsman is aware, the curriculum for prison officers does not include training in how to follow up inmates who have been placed in security cells or restraint beds. The training is limited to how the actual transfer to a security cell or restraint bed should be carried out. We have also not seen any ­systematic guidance to staff on this subject. The ­recently revised guidelines issued by the Directorate of the Norwegian Correctional Service contain no ­specific guidelines on how staff are to deal with inmates to ensure maximum consideration for their welfare and as brief a stay as possible. This is a serious omission. Records shall be kept of all supervision, to enable subsequent control of how inmates are cared for. Up till now, the guidelines have not specified the content of such records, and in many places the records have been incomplete. 9.3 Use of security cells in connection with mental crises Experience from the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s visits has shown that, in some cases, inmates assessed as suicidal are placed in security cells. At Åna Prison, around 35 per cent of all inmates who were placed in security cells in 2017 were placed there on grounds of risk of suicide or self-harm. In Bergen Prison, the ­corresponding figure was 25 per cent. Inmates are placed in security cells on grounds of being suicidal both at night and during the day. 67 Solitary confinement can increase the risk of suicide, self-harm and development of severe mental health ­disorders (see also section 4.2 Health effects of ­isolation). It is therefore highly problematic to use a ­security cell as a measure where there is a risk of ­suicide. Even if the acute risk of suicide or self-harm can be limited by placing the inmate in a bare cell, the use of a security cell clearly lacks healing and health-restoring elements. The condition and symptoms can worsen, and it cannot be ruled out that the risk of suicide will increase, both in the short and in the long run. Suicidal persons need to be in touch with empathic, ­listening and non-judgemental people who show that they understand and are able to build a good rapport with them. It is difficult to see that this can be ensured in a security cell. Research conducted by the ­Correctional Service has found that conversations with inmates are probably the most effective preventive measure against suicide.206 In one prison, the restraint bed was placed in a narrow corridor between the two security cells, and inmates who were taken to the security cells had to walk past it. In the same prison, many inmates were placed in a security cell on grounds of suicide risk, and several former security cell inmates had experience of previous admissions to mental health care institutions. A restraint bed placed right outside of the security cell can increase the feeling of insecurity in what is already an acute phase. Several of the inmates we spoke with had seen the restraint bed and reacted to it being placed where it was. ‘I was surprised to see the restraint bed there. I found it unpleasant in light of how I was feeling. When I saw that bed with the straps, I ­realised that I could be punished some more’. Inmate interviewed by the NPM Our review of security cell supervision protocols relating to ­inmates who had been transferred on grounds of suicide risk or self-harm has shown that inmates often become silent and apathetic in response to the ­situation. Others try to harm themselves by banging their head repeatedly against the wall. Both the protocols and the interviews with inmates who had spent time in a security cell showed that many of them had felt abandoned and a keen need for more human contact with the staff. In several cases, it particularly concerned inmates who had expressed a wish to take their own life or who had self-harmed. Even where there is an acute risk of suicide, the log shows that there is limited human contact with the inmates during ­supervision and that long conversations are rare. 9.4 Use of restraint beds The CPT has recommended that Norway cease to use restraint beds in prison. Despite this, most of the prisons that use security cells also have restraint beds. Inmates who are strapped to a restraint bed suffer an intrusion that involves a high risk of being traumatised in an acute life crisis. Close follow-up is therefore ­needed. Despite the risk of both mental and physical harm, the Execution of Sentences Act and its ­Regulations do not contain any requirements for staff supervision in connection with the use of restraint beds. It used to be specified in the Correctional Service’s internal guidelines that inmates strapped to a restraint bed only required supervision by prison staff once an hour. The guidelines as amended in March 2019 now require continuous monitoring by prison officers.207 In one prison, the bed was positioned so that the restrained inmate was unable to see if anyone was ­looking after him (the head of the bed was positioned so that the restrained inmate looked straight into a narrow, closed space). In some places, we have also been told that the staff are instructed not to speak with inmates in restraint beds. This is done on the grounds that the inmate should not find the restraint bed more attractive than a stay in a security cell. Such circumstances can reinforce the feeling of being powerless and isolated when the inmate is already subject to a highly intrusive measure. In addition, it displays a lack of knowledge of how persons in such crisis should be met. 206 Hammerlin, Y (2009). Selvmord og selvmordsnærhet i norske fengsler. Selvmordsforebyggende arbeid i fengsel (‘Suicide and suicidality in Norwegian prisons – Suicide prevention work in prisons��), p. 109. Lillestrøm: The Correctional Service of Norway Staff Academy (KRUS). 207 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.