CAT/C/63/D/678/2015 immediately.22 If the superior in the present case had received an accurate police report in accordance with the police regulations, it would have been possible for the police to assess the case and secure evidence. The fact that this was not the case shows a lack of efficient procedures in practice. 7.4 The complainant rejects the State party’s suggestion that the complainant’s lawyer’s request for documents was standard procedure. He notes that the standard procedure is to request documents when a client is still detained or when a decision is being made regarding indictment. In the present case, the lawyer was interested in documents relating to the complainant’s apprehension, whereas the complainant had already been released and there was no indictment. As regards the reason why the complainant’s lawyer did not follow up on the allegations of ill-treatment, the complainant submits that his lawyer did not want to do so. The complainant asked several lawyers to follow up, but none of them did. The complainant suggests that the reason for that could be an earlier case from May 2006, when the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs decided not to indict the police officer in a similar case. He also notes that the conditions for having a police officer indicted and convicted in Norway are very strict. The complainant disagrees with the State party’s conclusion that there was no reason for the police to instigate an investigation as no violation had taken place. He submits that the lack of willingness to investigate, combined with complete denial of all possible offences, should not be condoned. He notes that it would have been more convincing if the use of force by the police had been investigated by at least one neutral person. Since this did not happen, there was a violation of article 12, read in conjunction with article 16, of the Convention. 7.5 With regard to the lack of medical care, the complainant submits that whenever an injury leads to visible marks, the police ought to bring in health-care providers. Moreover, the complainant’s visible suffering from mental illness and/or intoxication should have emphasized the need for medical attention. The complainant refers to the Regulation on the Use of Police Holding Cells, in which it is stated that “before placing a person in a holding cell, the police shall assess his/her need for medical attention and, if necessary, arrange for him/her to be seen by a doctor …”.23 The complainant argues that the description of him in the police report should have at least given the police officers reason to doubt whether he was mentally stable or consider whether he was too intoxicated or incoherent to take care of himself. They should therefore have called for health-care personnel, who would have considered the complainant’s health situation before the police placed him in a holding cell for many hours. The complainant denies the State party’s submission that he was checked on in his cell every 30 minutes, and submits that there is no documentation attesting that this actually happened. The complainant also notes that his allegations are not unique, as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment raised the same issue when it visited Norway in 2011 and witnessed a detainee in need of medical attention who was not considered ill enough by the officer on duty at Bergen Police Headquarters. In its report, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture recommended that police officers be reminded of their duty to ensure that persons who are incapable of taking care of themselves receive the necessary medical attention.24 7.6 The complainant suggests that the police had information about his mental illness because (a) in his pocket he had a doctor’s notification of illness, with a psychiatric diagnosis; and (b) one of the arresting police officers, officer B, had also previously arrested the complainant, on 13 May 2005, for an unrelated offence. In the 2005 case, the complainant reported officer B to the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs for the violence used when arresting him. The complainant’s mental condition was documented in the 2005 complaint, and officer B was heavily involved in both the case against the complainant in 2005 and the Bureau’s investigation of officer B for using violence during the arrest. The decision of the Director General of Public Prosecutions not to investigate officer B for the incident in 2005 came just three months before the 22 23 24 See the police instructions of 22 June 1990. Regulation on the Use of Police Holding Cells, 30 June 2006, sect. 2-3. Report to the Norwegian Government, 21 December 2011, para. 16. 9