Special Report to the Storting Document 4:3 (2018–2019) 32 5 Lack of reliable i­ nformation about the use of solitary ­confinement For many years, the total extent of solitary confinement in Norwegian prisons has been unknown. As early as in the 1990s, the Standing Committee on Justice ­requested an overview of the frequency and duration of various types of solitary confinement in Norwegian prisons.99 Norwegian public authorities have repeatedly been ­criticised by the UN Committee against Torture for not having an overview of the extent of solitary ­confinement.100 In 2012, the committee recommended that Norwegian authorities obtain detailed, official statistics on the use of solitary confinement.101 The committee reiterated the recommendation to provide detailed statistics during its examination of Norway’s report in 2018.102 Since the Parliamentary Ombudsman first visited a Norwegian prison under the prevention mandate, the lack of reliable information at both the local and national level about the extent of solitary confinement has been a persistent challenge. During a visit to Bergen Prison in 2014, the prison administration stated that statistics on the use of Section 37 of the Execution of Sentences Act concerning exclusion from company as a preventive measure in 2014 could not be provided because of alterations to the Correctional Service’s computer system KOMPIS.103 99 100 101 102 103 5.1 Failure to correctly register ­administrative decisions For many years, the Correctional Service has found it challenging to register administrative decisions ­correctly in its ICT system. In 2015, alterations were in place that were supposed to facilitate a better overview of decisions on exclusion. However, in spring 2018, new errors were found in the system, which meant that the Directorate of the N ­ orwegian Correction Service no longer deemed previously published figures on ­administrative decisions on exclusion to be reliable. Pending correction of these errors, the prisons shall report all decisions on complete ­exclusion to the ­Directorate manually as from autumn 2018. The ­reporting requirement does not apply to decisions on partial exclusion, which can also entail solitary ­confinement (see Chapter 2 Definition of solitary confinement). Furthermore, decisions on exclusion are registered in different ways by different prisons due to unclear ­legislation. Among other things, this is a result of there being no definition of how many hours inmates shall spend out of their cells, and that the criteria for ­complete and partial exclusion are unclear (see ­Chapter 2 Definition of solitary confinement). Hence, what is considered partial exclusion in one prison can be considered as normal association with other inmates in another. There are also a number of situations in which the individual prisons do not make administrative ­decisions on exclusion from the company of other inmates. Recommendation to the Storting No 6 (1998–99), question 25, concerning the use of Section 53.4 of the Prison Rules that applied at the time, which corresponds to Section 37 of the Execution of Sentences Act. The UN Committee against Torture’s concluding observations on Norway’s fifth periodic report on the implementation of the UN Convention against Torture (CAT/C/NOR/CO/5) section 8; on Norway’s combined sixth and seventh periodic report (CAT/C/NOR/CO/6-7) paragraph 11, and on Norway’s eighth periodic report (CAT/C/NOR/CO/8) paragraphs 17–18. 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 (CAT/C/NOR/CO/6-7) paragraph 11. The UN Committee against Torture’s concluding observations on Norway’s eighth periodic report on the implementation of the UN Convention against Torture (CAT/C/NOR/CO/8) paragraphs 17–18. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report after its visit to Bergen Prison 4–6 November 2014, p. 13. 33 ‹ 5