80 11.2.1 Complaints mechanism The question of whether an independent complaints body should be established for prison inmates in ­Norway has been discussed several times. In NOU 1988: 37, the Prison Law Commission recommended the establishment of an independent complaints board. The Ministry at the time referred to the proposal having been supported by several consultation bodies, but rejected it on the grounds that such a solution would ‘be costly and to some extent impractical’. Instead, a complaints mechanism was established whereby the inmate complains to the immediate superior body of the body that made the administrative decision. In cases concerning solitary confinement, this will normally be the regional level. Decisions on solitary confinement made by a first-instance regional body may be appealed to the Directorate of the Norwegian Correctional Service. The complaints mechanism will not be discussed in any more detail in this report, but we stress that it often emerges during interviews with inmates that they are well aware of the possibility of complaining, but many consider it useless to complain because there is little chance that they will be heard. An effective complaints mechanism is an important safeguard to protect the rights of inmates. Special Report to the Storting Document 4:3 (2018–2019) The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s review of ­administrative decisions on complete or partial exclusion during the period 2014–2018 shows that the stated grounds for such decisions seldom contain ­sufficient information about less intrusive measures that have been tried or about why such measures have not been adequate. This undermines the inmate’s possibility of gaining access to the actual content of the administrative decision, and of submitting an appeal on an informed basis. Furthermore, the Correctional Service operates with a shorter deadline for appeal than what follows from the Public Administration Act. In the case of decisions on complete exclusion or use of coercive measures, the deadline for appeal is seven days. 11.2.2 Court hearing In principle, an administrative decision may be reviewed by the ordinary courts. This remedy is used to a very limited degree, however. Court proceedings are expensive and time-consuming. In the health and social care sector, inmates are not entitled to free legal aid in connection with court reviews of administrative decisions on coercive measures.259 The European Court of Human Rights has stated that effective access to court can sometimes compel the state to provide for the assistance of a lawyer.260, 261 The mechanism for getting a court review will not be discussed any further in this report. Main findings The supervisory regime is not in line with the ­standards set out in the European Prison Rules and the Nelson Mandela Rules. It is not a regime that ensures ­systematic and regular inspection, within the limits necessary to safeguard the legal rights of inmates in accordance with human rights standards. The fact that Norway lacks adequate prison inspection regimes has major consequences for safeguarding and controlling the conditions for inmates in solitary confinement. The prison health service, which plays an important role in relation to inmates in solitary confinement, is also not subject to regular supervision. 259 The Legal Aid Act Section 16 and the Mental Health Care Act Section 7-1 260 Engbo, H J, and Scharff, P S (2012): Fængsler og menneskerettigheder (’Prisons and Human rights’), p. 219. Copenhagen: Djøf Forlag. 261 ECtHR 9 October 1979 Airey v. Ireland, paragraph 26. 81