NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN National Preventive Mechanism ANNUAL REPORT 2019 28 Most of the decisions lacked documentation that other less intrusive measures had been attempted before using the restraint bed. The supervision logs showed that most of the inmates were transferred to a restraint bed from a security cell. A security cell is an intrusive isolation and sensory ­deprivation measure. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has in several instances expressed great concern over the fact that people who are suicidal are placed in solitary confinement in security cells.33 There is reason for concern that the use of security cells in reality can contribute to creating a situation that results in an inmate being placed in a restraint bed. Duration The ECtHR has in several judgments stated that the risk of a violation of Article 3 increases the longer a person is placed in restraints.34 In a ­decision from 2009, the Court found that a ­violation of Article 3 had taken place in a case where a person had been placed in a restraint bed for 10 hours.35 In a decision from 2012, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 in a case concerning a person being placed in a restraint bed for 9 hours. ECtHR stated the following: "Confinement to a restraint bed, […] should rarely need to be applied for more than a few hours […]" and "Having regard to the great distress and physical discomfort that the prolonged immobilisation must have caused to the applicant, the Court finds that the level of suffering and humiliation endured by him cannot be considered compatible with Article 3 standards".36 Almost half (39) of the incidents concerning the use of restraint beds lasted for longer than ten hours. A significant number of these cases (13) lasted for longer than 19 hours. The supervision logs for 12 of the cases regarding the use of restraint beds did not contain information about the duration of these measures. The figures may therefore be even higher. In most of the cases, neither the decision nor the supervision logs provide any documentation as to why it was necessary to use the restraints for so long. Supervision Supervision is vital to preventing harm in these ­situations, and for ensuring a continuous ­assessment of whether the measure remains ­necessary. In its ruling from 2012, the ECtHR ­stated that one of the conditions that must be present in order to use a restraint bed is that checks are periodically carried out.37 Since 2019, the guidelines pertaining to the Execution of Sentences Act have outlined a requirement for continuous supervision in the event of the use of a restraint bed. The requirement was previously that supervision had to be conducted at least once per hour. Many of the supervision logs showed more frequent supervision. Although most of the prisons underlined that continuous supervision was their established practice, this was not documented in the supervision logs. During the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s visits, we have learned that staff at some prisons are ­instructed to limit conversation with inmates placed in restraint beds. The reason for this is the idea that limiting human contact would ensure 33 Special Report to the Storting on Solitary Confinement and Lack of Human Contact in Norwegian Prisons, Report 4:3 (2018/19). 34 Julin v. Estonia, application no. 16563/08, judgment of 29 May 2012, Bures v. the Czech Republic, application no. 37679/08, judgment of 18 October 2012, M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2, application no. 75450/12), judgment of 19 May 2015. 35 Wiktorko v. Poland, application no. 14612/02, judgment of 31 March 2009. 36 Julin v. Estonia, application no. 16563/08, judgment of 29 May 2012. 37 Bures v. the Czech Republic, application no. 37679/08, judgment of 18 October 2012.