NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN National Preventive Mechanism 8 9 USE OF RESTRAINT BEDS IN NORWEGIAN PRISONS 2 Method During the period 2014–2018, the Parliamentary Ombudsman's National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) conducted 20 visits to 19 high-security prisons. Based on these findings, the Parliamentary Ombudsman initiated an investigation into the use of restraint beds in Norwegian high-security prisons for the period 2013–2018. We asked all of the high-security prisons in Norway to provide information on the number of restraint beds available and to submit the standard ­operating procedures for their use. We also asked for the total number administrative decisions on the use of restraint beds per year for the period 2013–2018; the duration of use in each decision; and how many decisions applied to the same ­individual. We conducted a review of all ­administrative decisions and the pertaining supervision logs. The prison health service was asked to submit their written procedures for the use of restraint beds. We also asked for a description of how the health service is notified, their tasks in relation to the use of restraint beds, their role when the use is discontinued, and whether they conduct follow-up of inmates after being strapped in a restraint bed. All prisons and prison health services responded to our request for information. 3 Human Rights Standards and National Legislation Restraints can only be used as a last resort, for the shortest time possible, and as the only way to prevent the person from inflicting harm on ­themselves or others.5 International law is moving towards a more critical stance on the use of restraints, in particular against people with mental health issues. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has recommended that the Member States discontinue the use of restraints entirely for people in that situation. The same applies to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.6 The CPT has also ­previously recommended avoiding the use of restraint beds outside non-medical settings.7 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has in several cases established that restraints can constitute a violation of the prohibition against torture and inhuman treatment, cf. the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 3. The Court currently appears to be applying a stricter review of cases concerning the use of restraints.8 In its evaluation of whether a violation of Article 3 has taken place, the Court places ­particular emphasis on the requirements of ­documentation of adequate reasons, duration, measures that were attempted prior to the intervention and the type of supervision that was carried out.9 In Norway, the use of restraint beds is regulated by the Execution of Sentences Act Section 38. The Act provides for the use of restraint beds, security cells and other approved measures of r­ estraint, in all situations covered by Section 38. This is not in accordance with the ECtHR’s ­requirements that each decision to use a restraint bed is based on adequate reasons explaining why the decision was made. The Directorate of Correctional Service has specified in the guidelines on the use of restraint beds that this measure must only be employed when strictly necessary to prevent an inmate from harming him or herself.10 ‘The decision was made on the basis that you took a butter knife and a razor blade and cut your left arm. You were then sent to the accident and emergency unit in an ambulance and you received several stitches. As the health personnel were trying to stitch up the wound, you tried to open the wound and prevent them from doing their job. Upon returning to prison, you were not communicative and not capable of describing what you wanted. For this reason, we assessed that it was very likely that you would continue to harm yourself. And you were therefore placed in a restraint bed.’ From an administrative decision to use the restraint bed. 5 The Mandela Rules, CPT, Bures v. the Czech Republic, application no. 37679/08, judgment of 18 October 2012, section 86 and M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2, application no. 75450/12), judgment of 19 May 2015. 6 The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Guidelines on article 14 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted at the committee’s 15th session in September 2015, paragraph 12 with further references. 7 See the CPT’s visit to Germany in 2015 [CPT/Inf (2017) 13] on the use of Fixierung in prison. 8 Herczegfalvy v. Austria, application no. 10533/83, judgment of 24 September1992 (Chamber), Henaf v. France, application no. 65436, judgment of 27 November 2003, Wiktorko v. Poland, application no. 14612/02, judgment of 31 March 2009, 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. A restraint bed in a prison visited by the NPM. 9 Henaf v. France, application no. 65436, judgment of 27 November 2003, Section 47. 10 Directorate of Correctional Service (2002). Guidelines to the Execution of Sentences Act and its Regulations, section 38.7. Revised version of 15 March 2019.