CAT/C/63/D/678/2015 complainant was arrested again, on 8 November 2006. Thus, the complainant suggests that at least one of the arresting officers knew about his mental condition, and that most likely he was not totally unbiased towards the complainant. 7.7 The complainant argues that there were no legal grounds to place him in solitary confinement. The official reason for placing him in the holding cell, as stated in police documents, was to prevent possible destruction of evidence. However, it is not explained in the police documents how the evidence could have been destroyed or why confinement was necessary and proportionate. It is stated in section 170 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act that a person can be arrested and detained only when there is sufficient reason to do so, and that the measure must be proportionate. In the complainant’s case, it was not taken into consideration whether the confinement was necessary and proportionate, because in Norway confinement is the only alternative to a release, when a person is detained after his or her arrest. Consequently, the police only had a choice between confinement and release of the complainant. The complainant refers to the Committee’s concluding observations on the third periodic report of Norway, in which the Committee recommended that: “Except in exceptional circumstances, inter alia, when the safety of persons or property is involved, the Committee recommends that the use of solitary confinement should be abolished, particularly during pretrial detention, or at least that it should be strictly and specifically regulated by law and that judicial supervision should be strengthened.” 25 The complainant submits that since the issuance of those concluding observations, in 1998, the State party has not altered its general practice of placing all arrested persons in solitary confinement in police holding cells for the initial period of detention. 7.8 The complainant argues that the decisive question in his detention is not the number of hours he spent in solitary confinement, although that is important too, but whether it was necessary and proportionate to hold a mentally ill person in solitary confinement at all. He refers to several reports, which conclude that the first period of solitary confinement is usually the hardest for detainees.26 He also refers to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which concludes that all solitary confinement of persons with mental disabilities, regardless of duration, is in violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 16 of the Convention against Torture.27 The complainant notes that not only in this case, but in general, the police do not provide reasons for placing detainees in solitary confinement because the law does not explicitly require this. Therefore, the lack of a law requiring that the reasoning be provided for placing detainees in solitary confinement, even after the Committee’s concluding observations of 1998, is contrary to article 11 of the Convention. Due to the absence of such a law, law enforcement personnel are not trained on this issue, which amounts to a violation of article 10 of the Convention. State party’s additional observations on the merits 8. In a note verbale dated 3 June 2016, the State party submitted English translations of several documents provided earlier by the complainant, and emphasized that it maintained its position regarding the admissibility and merits of the complaint. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee notes the State party’s objection that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention since the same matter has already been examined by the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee also notes that the European Court of 25 26 27 10 See A/53/44, para. 156. Thomas Horn, Fullstendig Isolasjon ved Risiko for Bevisforpillelse (2015), p. 18; Norwegian Ombudsman, case No. 2005/1691, p. 29; and European Committee for Prevention of Torture, 21st general report, CPT/Inf (2011) 28, para. 53. See A/66/268, para. 78.