REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY

Retsudvalget 2016-17
REU Alm.del Bilag 255
Offentligt

Solitary Confinement

as a Disciplinary Sanction

Focus on Denmark

Discussion Paper

International Conference

3 April 2017

Copenhagen, Denmark

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

Introduction

The use of solitary confinement, defined by the

Mandela Rules

as ‘the confinement of prisoners

for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact’,

has been the subject of much

local and international concern, and the extents of its use and severe health consequences are

widely documented and debated around the world.

International legal standards have long prohibited forms of solitary confinement amounting to

torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

Further protection and regulation are

provided by universal soft-law standards, primarily the

Mandela Rules,

that were adopted

unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 2015, and regional soft-law standards such as the

European Prison Rules

(EPR), as well as by the long-standing practice of human rights

monitoring bodies, including the UN Committee against Torture (CAT), the UN Subcommittee

on Prevention of Torture (SPT), Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture

(CPT), and by the jurisprudence of various courts.

The use of solitary confinement

as a disciplinary measure,

which is the topic of this conference

in Copenhagen, has also attracted attention for decades. More than 25 years ago, the United

Nations recognised that efforts targeting the abolition of solitary confinement as a punishment

should be undertaken and encouraged.

Yet, this punitive measure continues to be used in

numerous countries, causing severe health implications for many inmates, at times in violation

of the international normative framework.

Danish prison authorities use such measures primarily on the grounds of necessity and a lack of

alternatives and recently due to political directives to increase the use of disciplinary sanctions

in general.

Therefore, in Denmark, the use of solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure

(strafcelle) pursuant to the

Sentence Enforcement Act

(in Danish:

Straffuldbyrdelsesloven))

– for

both pre-trial detainees

and convicted prisoners – is still high (except for children). In total, its

use has more than doubled since 2001

and, during the last ten years, the numbers have

fluctuated between 2430 (2008) and 3044 (2011). From 2015 to 2016, there has been an

increase of more than 400 from 2579 in 2015 to an estimated 2995 in 2016, with half relating to

long-term duration of 15 or more days.

This is due to the recent tougher regulation of unlawful

possession (and use) of mobile phones.

The law continues to permit prolonged solitary confinement of up to four weeks for both adults

and children,

for both pre-trial detainees and those convicted in contravention of international

standards, which prohibit solitary confinement of children and sets the upper limit at two weeks

for adults. Denmark’s use of the

strafcelle

has long attracted the ire of the international

community, and, as recently as 2016, the CAT explicitly recommended that Denmark abolish the

use of solitary confinement of minors and its use as a disciplinary measure. The HRC called

Denmark to align its practice with international standards.

This paper provides the background for the discussions pertaining to the four panels:



Panel 1: What are the international legal standards regarding solitary

confinement as a disciplinary measure?

Panel 2: What are the health consequences of solitary confinement?

Panel 3: How is solitary confinement used as a disciplinary measure

(strafcelle) in Denmark and what are the areas of concern?

Panel 4: What are the international experiences using alternatives and

reducing the use of solitary confinement?

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

Key Questions for the Four Panels:



What are the international legal standards regarding solitary confinement as a disciplinary

measure?

How is solitary confinement defined under international law?

How is solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure regulated by international law?

When does solitary confinement amount to ill-treatment or torture?

What has been the impact of the

Mandela Rules

on the practice of solitary confinement?

How does the European system regulate the use of solitary confinement?

How is solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure viewed by the SPT and CPT?

What are the health consequences of solitary confinement?

Could effects be visible after only a few days?

How to better understand health consequences of punitive isolation?

How is such knowledge factored into the imposition of solitary confinement regimes?

How is the health of those in solitary confinement monitored?

What is the role of health professionals?



How is solitary confinement used as a disciplinary measure (strafcelle) in Denmark

and what are areas of concern?

How does Denmark currently use solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure?

How is this measure used in relation to the regulation of mobile phones in prisons?

What are the durations involved?

How does the Danish NPM monitor solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure?

How can inmates complain about these measures?



What are the international experiences using alternatives and reducing the use of solitary

confinement as a disciplinary measure?

What are the primary areas in which improvements can be realised?

What are lessons to be learned from international experiences in reform?

What are the factors impeding reform on solitary confinement particularly as a

disciplinary measure?

How can reform engage with the concerns of prison staff?

What are the cost-related arguments advanced against reform?

Table of Contents

Panel 1: International Legal Standards

Panel 2: Health Consequences

Panel 3: Danish Use of Solitary Confinement as a Disciplinary Measure

Panel 4: Reforms and Alternatives

References

Annex A – Discussion Paper – Reference List

Annex B – DIGNITY Documentation Centre – Material List

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

Panel 1: What are the international legal standards?

Definition of Solitary Confinement

Solitary confinement is now defined under international law for the first time as the:

confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact.

This 22/24 definition is now a universal yardstick that

will cover various forms of solitary confinement,

including its use for disciplinary purposes. Guidance as

to the definition of 'meaningful human contact' can be

found in Essex Paper 3 and the

Istanbul Statement on

Solitary Confinement.

Mandela Rules, Rule 44:

purpose of these rules,

confinement shall refer

confinement of prisoners

hours or more a day

meaningful human contact.

For the

solitary

to the

for 22

without

The

Mandela Rules

also define prolonged solitary confinement as being ‘solitary confinement

for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days’.

Regulation of Solitary Confinement as a Disciplinary Measure

Prohibition as Torture or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment

binding

instrument of international law

directly

prohibits the use of solitary confinement.

However, solitary confinement as amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, and

to torture, has long been prohibited by the UN

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights

(ICCPR) and the

European Convention on Human Rights.

This is now repeated in rule 43

(1) of the

Mandela Rules.

Moreover, the

ICCPR

stipulates that ‘all persons deprived of their

liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human

person’ (Article 10(1)).

In assessing whether a specific detention regime or case is a violation of these provisions, the

Committee against Torture (CAT), the Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the European Court

of Human Rights (ECHR) approach the matter in a broadly similar manner by focusing on several

factors, such as legality, justification, proportionality, duration, degree, conditions, impact,

monitoring and whether procedural safeguards have been observed.

Prohibition of Prolonged Period of Confinement

Given the risk of irreparable harm arising after two weeks, isolation beyond this mark is

prohibited by rule 43 (1)(b) of the

Mandela Rules.

This should be viewed as ‘a clear point of

departure from which solitary confinement no longer constitutes a legitimate tool for State use

regardless of the circumstances’,

as stated by the former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Thus, indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement are prohibited. This prohibition should also

be applied to ‘frequently renewed measures that amount to prolonged solitary confinement’.

It is CPT practice to require an interruption of several days between such periods.

Prohibition of Isolation of Vulnerable Groups

Rule 45 (2) of the

Mandela Rules

makes it clear that solitary confinement should be abolished

for the following persons deprived of their liberty:



children;

women (who are pregnant, with infants or breastfeeding); and,

prisoners with mental or physical disabilities ‘when their conditions would be

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

exacerbated by such measures’.

The first two prohibitions are simply incorporations of standards already enshrined in the

Havana Rules

and

Bangkok Rules

respectively. Specifically with respect to children, the

Committee for the Rights of the Child (CRC) has consistently recommended that solitary

confinement of children be abolished.

Rule 45 (2) of the

Mandela Rules

prohibits

confinement of prisoners with mental or

physical disabilities ‘when their conditions would

be exacerbated by such measures’. Relatedly,

rule 39 (3) of the

Mandela Rules

requires prison

staff to consider the degree to which the

prisoner’s disability has influenced their

behavior. If it is deemed to be a direct result of

the disability, then no sanction shall be imposed.

The CAT has already formed the view in its

practice that any solitary confinement for

disciplinary purposes for these three groups

should be abolished.

Mandela Rules, Rule 45 (2): The imposition

of solitary confinement should be

prohibited in the case of prisoners with

mental or physical disabilities when their

conditions would be exacerbated by such

measures. The prohibition of the use of

solitary confinement and similar measures

in cases involving women and children, as

referred to in other United Nations

standards and norms in crime prevention

and criminal justice (fn: r 67 of Havana

Rules and r 22 of Bangkok Rules) continues

to apply.

Exceptional Use as a Last Resort for as Short a Time as Possible

The

Mandela Rules

and the ECHR’s jurisprudence

confirm that solitary confinement is ‘one of

the most serious measures which can be imposed [within a prison, and that, accordingly]

authorities are under an obligation to assess all relevant factors in an inmate's case before

placing him in solitary confinement’.

Mandela Rules, Rule 45 (1): Solitary

The rule arising from this recognition is,

confinement shall be used only in

exceptional cases as a last resort, for as

therefore, that solitary confinement be used

short a time as possible and subject to

only in exceptional cases as a last resort, for as

independent review, and only pursuant to

short a time as possible in rule 45 (1) of the

the authorization by a competent

Mandela Rules

and rule 60.5 of the

EPR.

authority.

Even a disciplinary sanction of short duration should be assessed against all relevant factors,

including the principle of necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination. Most recently, the

SPT drew attention to the plight of LGBT prisoners in discriminatory isolation observing that

they were ‘not only likely to serve their sentences in isolation, but also more likely to serve

longer time.’

Strict Regulation of Disciplinary Measures

The

ICCPR

clearly stipulates that ‘the penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners

the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation’ (Article 10 (3)).

The

Mandela Rules,

from rules 36 to 46, require that:



Rule 36: Discipline and order to be maintained with no more restriction than necessary;

Rule 37: Disciplinary measures, including isolation, shall always be authorized by law;

Rule 38: Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to be used in preventing and resolving

conflicts as much as possible;

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture



Rule 39 (1): No prisoner shall be

sanctioned except in accordance with the

terms of the law or regulation referred to

in rule 37 and the principles of fairness

and due process;

Rule 39 (1): A prisoner shall never be

sanctioned twice for the same act or

offence;

Rule 39 (2): Prison administrations shall

ensure proportionality between a

disciplinary sanction and the offence for

which it is established; and,

Rule 39 (2): Prison administrations shall

keep a proper record of all disciplinary

sanctions imposed.

Moreover, inmates are entitled to specific

procedural rights before disciplinary sanctions

can be imposed including the rights

mentioned in rule 41 of the

Mandela Rules

well as:



Mandela Rules, Rule 41:

1. Any allegation of a disciplinary offence by

a prisoner shall be reported promptly to the

competent authority, which shall investigate

it without undue delay.

2. Prisoners shall be informed, without delay

and in a language that they understand, of

the nature of the accusations against them

and shall be given adequate time and

facilities for the preparation of their defence.

3. Prisoners shall be allowed to defend

themselves in person, or through legal

assistance when the interests of justice so

require, particularly in cases involving

serious disciplinary charges. If the prisoners

do not understand or speak the language

used at a disciplinary hearing, they shall be

assisted by a competent interpreter free of

charge.

4. Prisoners shall have an opportunity to

seek judicial review of disciplinary sanctions

imposed against them.

Rules 24-35: access to and adequate provision of medical attention and right to visit by a

doctor daily; and,

Rule 43 (3): right to family visits.

Part IV of the

EPR

mirrors this regulatory framework regarding the use of solitary confinement

as a disciplinary measure.

Practice of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT)

The CPT has worked consistently towards the minimisation of solitary confinement because of

the ‘mental, somatic and social damage’ it can inflict and also because ‘given the opportunity it

can provide for the deliberate infliction of ill-treatment’.

Its reports and standards have been

especially influential.

Particular attention has also been paid to the justifications, duration,

detention conditions, impact, and procedural rights.

This is summarised in its PLANN

(proportionality, legality, accountability, necessity, non-discrimination) mnemonic.

CPT requires that legal regulation needs to be clear and precise in terms of the:



Circumstances in which each form of solitary confinement can be imposed;

Imposition of solitary confinement as a disciplinary sanction should be a measure of last

resort, for as short a time as possible;

Authority/public officials who may impose the measure;

Procedures to be followed when imposing it;

Requirement to give the prisoner the fullest possible reasons for the decision;

Right of the prisoner affected to make representations as part of the procedure;

Procedure and frequency of independent reviews of the decision; and,

Procedure for appealing the decision.

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

Panel 2: What are the health consequences of solitary confinement?

Health Impacts of Solitary Confinement

Health studies extensively document, as noted by Peter Scharff Smith and others, the

deleterious health impacts of solitary confinement that relate to physical, mental and social

consequences.

The degree of harm inflicted on a specific inmate is, according to Shalev, dictated by a number

of factors, including:



individual factors – such as personal background and pre-existing health problems;

environmental factors – i.e., physical conditions and provisions;

contextual factors, including:

- the specific regime – such as time out of cell, degree of human contact etc.;

- the context of the isolation – such as punishment, own protection, voluntary/non-

voluntary, political/criminal; and,

- its duration.

Despite variations in individual, environmental and contextual factors, there is consistency in

findings on the health effects of solitary confinement.

Moreover, solitary confinement need not be prolonged (more than 15 days) for any suffering to

be inflicted, as noted by Shalev and others. By way of example, according to Koch’s research on

Danish pre-trial detainees in isolation, ‘acute isolation syndrome’ entailing ‘problems of

concentration, restlessness, failure of memory, sleeping problems and impaired sense of time

an ability to follow the rhythm of day and night’ became evident after a few days in isolation.

This was observed to develop into ‘chronic isolation syndrome’ within weeks.

Thus, it is a widely-held view that effects ‘can occur after only a few days [and] rise with each

additional day spent in such conditions’.

Mental Impact

Reported effects with regards to negative impacts on mental health and wellbeing include

adjustment disorders and symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress.

Studies have found

that solitary confinement increased the risk of hospitalization to prison hospital for psychiatric

reasons, and that mental health condition improved when prisoners were moved from solitary

confinement to non-solitary confinement, indicating that solitary confinement imposes harmful

conditions that could have been avoided by abolishing solitary confinement.

More studies show that previously isolated prisoners have a higher risk of trying to commit

suicide than others.

Relatedly, surveying recent studies, Scharff Smith and Jacobsen conclude

that the rate of mental illness has generally increased in Danish prisons.

One study cited

relates to Vestre Fængsel, where in 2013 Kriminalforsorgen diagnosed 8% of remand prisoners

with insanity and 83% with psychiatric disorders.

Social Impact

With the deprivation of basic human needs such as social contact, belongingness (including

visitation rights, meaningful interaction with other inmates), environmental stimulation

(including institutional programming, physical exercise and recreation), individuals can become

socially debilitated.

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

Koch, for instance, has documented the difficulties some Danish prisoners had, due to the

anxiety as caused by their isolation, in being around other people upon their release from

prison.

Haney attributes this, particularly those subjected to prolonged isolation, to the

damage and distortion caused to an individual’s social identity and sense of self, which, ‘for

some, destroy their ability to function normally in free society’ and the ‘atrophy of important

skills and capacities’.

Prison health concerns should be situated within the domain of public health. The World Health

Organisation has stated that ‘good prison health is essential to good public health’.

Needless

to say, this is because what happens in prison does not stay in prison; prisoners are not released

from health and behavioural issues as they are released from terms of incarceration. This

connection is also made in the

EPR.

Such links clearly include, but also reach beyond, the

harms inflicted by solitary confinement.

Factoring Health into Decisions about Disciplinary Sanctions

The prevalent use of solitary confinement as a

Mandela Rules, Rule 39 (3): Before

disciplinary measure in some countries points us

imposing disciplinary sanctions, prison

to questioning the extent to which health

administrations shall consider whether and

considerations feature in decision-making

how a prisoner’s mental illness or

processes.

Perhaps,

the

widespread

developmental disability may have

institutionalisation of the practice itself has

contributed to his or her conduct and the

come to represent its own justification.

commitment of the offence or act

Reportedly, such thinking renders it easier for an

underlying the disciplinary charge. Prison

inmate to be put into solitary confinement if

administrations shall not sanction any

that inmate is a gang member or classified as

conduct of a prisoner that is considered to

dangerous based on having been subjected to it

be the direct result of his or her mental

illness or intellectual disability.

previously.

Further to this, the mid to longer-term impacts need to be canvassed before solitary

confinement is deemed to be fitting. Accepting its harmful effects on the psyche of its subjects,

solitary confinement can predictably also exacerbate recalcitrance and retribution, already a

feature in many a prison. This would conceivably resonate more so in circumstances where the

decision-making process remains opaque: with little or no communication or review rights

afforded to the prisoner.

In their study on the United States, Reiter and Blair illustrate ‘the perverse symbiosis of solitary

confinement and mental illness’, entailing a ‘vicious cycle’ as mental illness causes misbehaviour

that is used to justify solitary confinement, which then causes further deterioration in behaviour

and the underlying conditions attracting further discipline.

Beyond reasons pertaining to the

deinstitutionalisation of inpatient psychiatric care, the failure of prison health professionals to

sufficiently ‘track individuals or patterns of behaviour’ is put forward as facilitating this, since

‘without documentation of outcomes, the system is permitted to perpetuate itself’.

Challenges in disassociating mental illness from criminality is not exclusive to the United States.

Monitoring of Disciplinary Sanctions by Health Professionals

Monitoring by a qualified health professional of the health of inmates in solitary confinement as

a punishment is also paramount. Not all prisoners react to the same conditions in the same way,

especially if an inmate has pre-existing, or a predisposition to, mental health issues.

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

The

EPR

require that prisoners in solitary confinement to be monitored daily by a medical

practitioner, who is then to report to the prison director if the prisoner’s health is being put

seriously at risk (Rules 43.2 and 43.3).

The

Mandela Rules

similarly impose strict requirements about monitoring by health

professionals and underline that the health professionals should advise the staff ‘if necessary to

terminate or alter them [these measures] for physical or mental health reasons’ (Rule 46(2)).

Health professionals, primarily driven by the

ethos of preserving health, are very much

faced with a difficult ethical quandary when

working in a system which has punishment,

dimensions of which can constitute ill-

treatment, at its heart. Conflicted loyalties,

between the inmate/patient and the

institution, conceivably arise where it is

incumbent on the health professional to

report any such ill-treatment but who must

also continue to work with the responsible

staff. In one Danish study, it was shown that

prison counsellors administering prison-

based drug treatment were themselves

adapting to and recommending the use of

isolation as a means of detoxification.

other research, a Norwegian ethnographical

study on Tromsø Prison, Marta Rua noted

that prison doctors monitoring prisoners in

solitary confinement were depicted as being

conflict-averse, positioning themselves as

pragmatic and cooperative instead of

holding their ground or being critical or

reform-minded.

Mandela Rules, Rule 46:

1. Health-care personnel shall not have any

role in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions

or other restrictive measures. They shall,

however, pay particular attention to the health

of prisoners held under any form of

involuntary separation, including by visiting

such prisoners on a daily basis and providing

prompt medical assistance and treatment at

the request of such prisoners or prison staff.

2. Health-care personnel shall report to the

director, without delay, any adverse effect of

disciplinary sanctions or other restrictive

measures on the physical or mental health of a

prisoner subjected to such sanctions or

measures and shall advise the director if they

consider it necessary to terminate or alter

them for physical or mental health reasons.

3. Health-care personnel shall have the

authority to review and recommend changes

to the involuntary separation of a prisoner in

order to ensure that such separation does not

exacerbate the medical condition or mental or

physical disability of the prisoner.

***

Panel 3: How is solitary confinement used as a disciplinary measure (strafcelle) in Denmark and

what are the areas of concern?

Regulation

In Denmark, the following four types of isolation are regulated by the

Sentence Enforcement Act:

1. Exclusion from association, cf. the

Sentence Enforcement Act

§ 63

2. Voluntary exclusion from association, cf. the

Sentence Enforcement Act

§ 33

3. Isolation in a security cell (sikringscelle), possibly under forced physical restraint, cf. the

Sentence Enforcement Act

§ 66

4. Isolation as a disciplinary sanction (strafcelle), cf. the

Sentence Enforcement Act

§ 68.

Exclusion from association is a preventive measure that cannot be used as a sanction for

previous (mis)behaviour. This measure is applied to prevent future violent behaviour, criminal

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

activity, escape, etc. In contrast, the use of solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure is a

punishment that does not directly aim at preventing certain behaviour.

Pursuant to § 67 of the law, an inmate

shall

receive a disciplinary measure in certain situations,

including for the reasons mentioned in Table 3. In June 2016, the wording of this paragraph was

amended from discretionary decision about imposing a disciplinary measure (‘could’ be

imposed) to a compulsory measure (‘shall’ be imposed) leaving the prison administration

without any discretion but to impose it as a standard operational procedure.

The punishment cell is the most severe disciplinary measure available in Danish prisons, with

lesser restrictive methods including warnings and fines (Sentence

Enforcement Act

§ 68).

Pursuant to § 68 (2) of the

Sentence Enforcement Act,

this can only be used as a disciplinary

measure in specific situations as listed in Table 3. Obviously, some of these infractions would

also be punished in accordance to the

Danish Criminal Code.

By way of example, the unlawful

use and possession of mobile phones in closed prisons and remand prisons is criminalised in §

124 (4) in the

Danish Criminal Code.

This might raise the question of double punishment as

highlighted by the Danish Institute of Human Rights in its recent comments to the legislative

changes to the use of mobile phones.

Decision Process

Pursuant to § 70 (1) of the

Sentence Enforcement Act,

the prison staff have to take into account

the nature and extent of the violation in order to determine the duration of the

strafcelle

that

can last for a maximum of four weeks. In doing so, the prison staff conduct a specific

assessment as bound by the principle of proportionality.

Pursuant to the powers conferred to the Minister of Justice under § 70 (3) of the Act, the

Minister

has

adopted

regulation

regarding

the

punishment

cell

(Disciplinærstrafbekendtgørelsen).

This, in detail, describes the use, administration and

complaint procedure, and the inmate is entitled to, inter alia, a justification, information and

the right to express his/her opinion. In addition, the Minister of Justice has published a guidance

(‘Vejledning om behandlingen af sager om disciplinærstraf, konfiskation og modregning af

erstatningsbeløb (disciplinærstrafvejledningen)’)

which includes information on how to decide

on using the disciplinary cell, legal obligations and safeguards for the prisoner.

Practice

In daily practice, when prisoners violate internal prison rules, disciplinary measures are used in

accordance with a

form of normal reactions

(a type of sentencing matrix). This form is

developed centrally by Danish Prison and Probation Service and as a way of guiding the

institutions and applies to uniform prison facilities, i.e. some for closed prisons and others for

open prisons. As pointed out by experts, this practice can be useful to secure a consistent use of

disciplinary measures such as solitary confinement. However, it can also be a pitfall as the form

sometimes is used uncritically, as an answer book of sorts. This unduly eliminates the need for

the specific assessment and the proportionality test, informed by the circumstances particular

to the situation, by the appropriate prison staff.

This punishment is served in a special unit of the prison, a prisoner’s regular cell or in a remand

institution (arresthus) as stated in § 70 (2) of th Some prisons have separate sections for the

punishment cell. Their physical conditions vary between the different institutions (in size, state

of repair, condition, lighting etc.).

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

As shown in table 3, in 2015, the most commonly used justification for the use of disciplinary

cell was the improper disposal of objects and money, constituting 44,9 % of all placements.

Table 3, Justifications (%) for the disciplinary cell in 2015

Refused to give urine sample

Occupation refusal

Smuggling / possession / consumption of alcohol or drugs

Failed to follow staff instructions

Escape attempts

Improper disposal of objects and money

Avoidance / absence from leave

Other misuse of leave

Other criminal offences

Violation of rules set by the institution leader

Total %

4,8

1,3

8,1

5,5

1,2

44,9

0,5

1,6

17,7

14,4

100

The use of the punishment cell remains highly prevalent. In fact, its use pursuant to the

Sentence Enforcement Act

has virtually doubled from 2001 to 2016, as mentioned. The vast

majority of cases relate to men (2918 out of the estimated 2995 cases in 2016). Moreover, the

mentioned legislative amendment regarding unlawful use of mobile phones has entailed a

significant increase in the use of longer punishment in excess of 15 days. In 2016, there were

222 long-term placements (in excess of 15 days) whereas in 2015 there were seven. Some 219

of the 222 were due to unlawful possession of mobile phones. This is due the recent tripling of

punishments in closed prisons from five to 15 days, and also applies to pre-trial detainees.

There is, unfortunately, no general statistics regarding the duration of any isolation, except for

the unlawful possession of mobile phones.

Complaints

Decisions on the use of the

strafcelle

made by local institutions can be appealed to Direktoratet

for Kriminalforsorgen, whose decisions are final and cannot be brought before another

administrative authority. An appeal to Kriminalforsorgen has no suspensory effect, unless it so

decides. Decisions regarding disciplinary cells entailing a duration of more than seven days can

be appealed to the court system (Straffuldbyrdelsesloven § 112 (3)). Other decisions can be

brought to the the judicial system under § 63 of the Danish Constitution.

Only a very small number of decisions are appealed first to Direktoratet and then before the

judicial system. We are aware of three decisions from 2013 and in one of these the court

overturned the administrative decision about the punishment cell.

Independent Oversight

In 2012, the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Danish:

Folketingets Ombudsmand),

in cooperation

with DIGNITY and the Danish Institute for Human Rights, began to conduct inspections of

institutions where people who are deprived of their liberty as Denmark’s National Preventive

Mechanism (NPM) under the

Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture

(OPCAT).

Recognising the particular concerns arising from the use of solitary confinement, the

Ombudsman has long paid special attention to those in

strafcelle

and other forms of isolation

when conducting its visits.

As the visit reports are not made public, it is not possible to

ascertain the NPM’s findings regarding the use of disciplinary measures.

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

***

Panel 4: What are the international experiences using alternatives and reducing the use of solitary

confinement?

Introduction

Discipline within conventional prison settings centres on retribution and deterrence, deeming

rehabilitation a secondary consideration, if at all. Environments which are oppressive and

violent should call us to question the degree to which prisoners should be expected to adhere

to prison discipline.

The primacy of security concerns also mean that expectations of reform

need to be approached with some caution. Given that studies have found the measure at hand

not to deter, the rationale of security and prison discipline must be critically evaluated.

Legislative Change:

is the most direct and effective avenue. Like Norway and Sweden, the most

meaningful and concrete reform would be to abolish the measure outright in domestic

legislation.

Favourable Regulation: Entry, Conditions and Exit:

Other means of progressive reform of the use

of solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure would be to restrict entry criteria, improve

conditions of confinement, and strengthen review mechanisms.

Prison Culture:

A range of stakeholders, primarily prison administrators and guards, must also be

factored in to the equation. Legitimate considerations of prison security and order would

expectedly feature prominently in the mind of a decision maker. Legal or theoretical knowledge

is no substitute for operational expertise of a prison’s dynamics. It is important that they are

given their due weight. Gauging the need for training on improving prisoner-prison staff

relationships and practical implications of international law standards are key. These

prescriptions are seemingly derived from the concept of ‘dynamic security’, a proactive

approach which values positive prisoner-staff relationships to better enable staff to anticipate

and address security threats early on.

Both the

EPR

(rule 51) and the

Mandela Rules

(rule 76)

incorporate dynamic security into their respective understandings of prisoner management.

Prison officer culture is, by one account, ‘central to the reproduction of the prison as a place of

punishment and pain’.

Accordingly, it must be incorporated into any discussion on penal

reform. That is to say, deep-seated cultural impediments may also encumber any change in

procedure. One must be mindful, however, that prison authorities also act on political directives

or other less formal cues such as the emanating rhetoric on law and order. Crewe, Bennett and

Wahidin argue that there is an explanatory deficiency in how and why cultures differ between

institutions or, ‘the dynamics by which they are sustained’.

Leibling argues that prison staff

culture cannot said to be homogenous, observing that prison staff operate on suspicion and

machismo on the one hand and diplomacy, decisiveness and flexibility on the other.

Deterrence:

Effectiveness of the disciplinary isolation is another aspect of the critique here.

Even with other factors controlled, a recent study of male inmates in Oregon concluded that

‘disciplinary segregation [double-celled isolation] was not a significant predictor of subsequent

institutional misconduct’.

Lucas and Jones provide an overview of a number of similar studies

that have reached similar conclusions with respect to various uses of solitary confinement.

Cost–Related Arguments:

Some have argued that it is cheaper to use solitary confinement than

other less-restrictive means. However, when calculated, financial costs associated with relying

on solitary confinement, which engages comparatively more prison resources to perform the

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

same functions such as monitoring, delivering basic needs such as food, hygiene and recreation,

undermine such reasoning. Moreover, as a secondary argument, according to Bennion, as cost

efficiency arguments do not override the provision of other basic human needs like food,

neither should they override another such need namely meaningful human contact.

Reform of Pre-trial Solitary Confinement in Denmark

Historically, Denmark’s use of solitary confinement during criminal investigations, pursuant to

the

Administration of Justice Act

(Danish:

Retsplejeloven),

was excessive in number and

duration. Smith and Koch point out that until the late 1970s more than 40% of all pre-trial

detainees were placed in such solitary confinement.

As a consequence of extensive research

and documentation, as well as pressure from organisations, individual experts and groups, and

international committees, this practice was challenged and since improved.

The reform began in late 1982 with a parliamentary discussion. The Ministry of Justice

requested, on two occasions, the opinion of the Criminal Justice Committee

(Strafferetsplejeudvalget). The Committee then conducted an extensive comprehensive

psychiatric and psychological study to inform this legislative process.

This lead to the

Copenhagen Study on Solitary Confinement (Danish:

Isolationsundersøgelsen),

published in two

phases being in 1994 and 1997, which was instrumental in documenting the health

consequences of isolation. Danish psychiatrists Andersen, Sestoft and Lillebæk,

inter alia,

related the use of pre-trial solitary confinement to negative psychiatric effects, such as

significantly higher incidence of psychiatric morbidity and higher likelihood of being admitted to

the prison hospital for a psychiatric reason.

The authors, therefore, recommended that pre-

trial solitary confinement be abolished.

Subsequently, a number of legislative changes focusing on better complaint and oversight

mechanisms and decreased time limits were introduced.

The latest changes happened in 2006

following a major public debate

resulting in the introduction of the current time limits of

maximum eight weeks.

Moreover, an oversight mechanism, which was introduced in the form

of mandatory yearly reporting to the Ministry of Justice by the Director of Public Prosecution,

entailed improved transparency and documentation.

This coupled with broader change in

public and policy mentality incrementally reduced the use of pre-trial solitary confinement.

In 2001, 9,5% of all pre-trial detainees were held in isolation and, in 2015, this number dropped

to only 0,7% of overall (being a total of 32 placements). This is a drop of more than 94% from

2001.

The average duration of solitary confinement in 2015 was 19 days.

In 2014, three prisoners

were placed in isolation between 15 and 28 days, one prisoner was placed in isolation between

29 and 42 days and six were placed between 43 and 56 days. Altogether 10 prisoners were

placed in prolonged solitary confinement.

The CAT and HRC, assessing this as prolonged and in

breach of international standards, strongly recommended that time limits be further

decreased.

The main arguments in affecting these changes, as just outlined, were based on raising

awareness of the harm inflicted by solitary confinement, the strengthening of judicial review

mechanisms coupled with the imperative that it needed to be seen and used as a method of last

resort. This development should be seen as an illustration of how rigid conceptions of necessity

can be challenged and, ultimately, dismantled.

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

International Experiences in Reforms and Alternatives

There are significant challenges in comparing the use of solitary confinement across different

jurisdictions. Prison conditions, degrees of isolation, terminology and regulatory frameworks are

not standardised. With that in mind, reforms in jurisdictions comparable to Denmark show that

more innovative and effective alternatives to solitary confinement, though not without their

own shortcomings, exist. Focal points are found in Norway, Sweden, the UK, and the US.

Despite the existence of strong historical work tracing the relevant developments, there is no

comprehensive comparative research available on reforms and alternatives.

Norway:

where complete solitary punishment as a disciplinary measure was abolished with the

enactment of the

Execution of Sentences Act

in 2001, is of some instruction here. The reform

was also a product of domestic and international pressure. Exceptions in the regulatory

framework are made for short-term punitive use entailing partial isolation for up to 24 hours.

Partial or complete preventive solitary confinement (i.e. exclusion) can still be used if necessary

to ‘maintain peace, order and security’, and to prevent negatively influencing prison

environment, criminal acts or material damage.

Human rights advocates have argued that the

increased use of preventive solitary confinement coupled with its vague and discretionary

nature in Norway indicates a development of a practice where prevention is being used to

circumvent the limitations on disciplinary measures.

Sweden:

abolished the solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure in 1975.

The reforms

were driven by the recognition of the harms resulting from isolation. Notably, the Parliamentary

Committee tasked with the investigation also considered and dismissed the claims that the

measure was indispensable as a last resort.

Furthermore, the Parliamentary Committee

pointed out that prisons as a matter of course significantly isolate prisoners and that further

isolation, when prolonged, would raise difficulties for the isolated prisoner, as a result of denial

of prison programs such as job training, in re-adjusting back to society.

The CPT noted that

although solitary confinement was purportedly used on administrative grounds as found under

the relevant law, it was perceived by some interviewed inmates as punitive.

United Kingdom:

has sought reforms in limiting its use of solitary confinement. Particularly In

the last couple of years, its NPM has paid close attention to its causes and prevalence. This

process has culminated in the development of new guidelines released in January 2017 where

the UK NPM, amongst other things, requires: that evidence of the consideration of alternatives

be provided by decision-makers; that isolation not occur due to a shortage of staff or facility

design; that decisions should be authorised and recorded by senior staff; that basic amenities

and routines should be provided and not be denied as a matter of policy; and that staff should

play a positive and meaningful role with prisoners.

Grendon: Pitted against the supermax, HMP Grendon in England represents a system of

incarceration comprehensively informed by a psycho-therapeutic approach. As the only

therapeutic community prison in England, it has successfully abolished isolation within its

confines, only resorting to transferring its inmates to isolation cells in nearby prisons on the rare

occasion.

It is all the more impressive as its prisoner population is comparable to that of a

supermax, with a vast majority serving indeterminate sentences, with a history, prior to being

transferred to Grendon, of ‘significantly higher level of formal disciplinary punishments for

disciplinary infractions’.

Composed of five distinct communities, each has its ‘dedicated staff

group including prison officers, a therapy manager who has psychotherapeutic training, a

psychologist and facilitators with a range of professional and clinical backgrounds.’

Instances

of poor behaviour are effectively addressed by the prisoner group. Significant outcomes have

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

been documented ‘including reduced levels of violence and self-harm, improved psychological

well-being and improved quality of life for prisoners and staff’.

United States of America:

Although the scale of solitary confinement remains a strong feature of

the American penitentiary landscape, successful reforms have been realised in some states.

Standards and alternatives have been developed and advocated for by non-governmental

organisations as well as governmental agencies.

Colorado: has reduced its administratively segregated population from 7.7% of its overall

population in 2011 to 1.1% in 2014 through developing specific facilities for the treatment of

inmates with mental illnesses. It has also prohibited the isolation of women and children.

Maine: According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the reforms there have been significant

with: ‘the number of prisoners in solitary confinement has been cut in half; the duration of stays

in Maine’s solitary units is generally now measured in days rather than weeks or months; and

the treatment of prisoners in these units includes substantially more meaningful human

interaction and more opportunity for rehabilitation.’

In terms of disciplinary solitary

confinement, its imposition was limited to cases involving an ‘extremely serious offence such as

a fight involving weapons’ where either of the following was present: ‘1) the prisoner

constitutes an escape risk in less restrictive status; 2) the prisoner poses a threat to the safety of

others in less restrictive status; 3) the prisoner poses a threat to his/her own safety in less

restrictive status; or 4) there may be a threat to the prisoner’s safety in a less restrictive status.’

Alternatives were broadened to include: ‘confining the prisoner to his own cell; limiting contact

visits; restricting the visitors allowed to immediate family; loss of work opportunities’.

New York: Proposed changes to primarily reduce, through less restrictive means, the state’s

overreliance on extreme forms of solitary confinement were instigated by litigation. The draft

bill

Humane Alternatives to Long-Term (HALT) Solitary Confinement Act

proposes to ensure that

those separated from the general population be placed in ‘a rehabilitative and therapeutic unit

aimed at providing additional programs, therapy, and support to address underlying needs and

causes of behavior, with 6 hours per day of out-of-cell programming plus one hour of out-of-cell

recreation’ and that 'no person may be held in isolated confinement more than 15 consecutive

days nor 20 days total in any 60 day period. At these limits, a person must be released or

diverted to the alternative [unit] with more out-of-cell time, programs, and therapy.’

***

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

References

UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (‘Mandela Rules’)

(A/RES/70/175, 17

December 2015), rule 44.

See DIGNITY, ‘The Use of Solitary Confinement as a Disciplinary Measure: Literature available in

DIGNITY’s Library & Documentation Centre’, March 2017; United Nations, Report of the SRT

(A/66/268, 5 August 2011); Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Cyrus R. Vance Center for International

Justice, and Anti-Torture Initiative, Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law at American

University Washington College of Law, ‘Seeing into Solitary: A Review of the Laws and Policies of

Certain Nations Regarding Solitary Confinement Detainees’ (United Nations Special Rapporteur on

Torture: October 2016); CPT, 21

General Report, CPT/Inf (2011) 28, para. 53; OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc.

64 (31 December 2011), p. 143; Smith, Peter Scharff, ‘The Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prison

Inmates: A Brief History and Review of the Literature’ (2006) 34

Crime and Justice

441, pp. 444-450;

Shalev, Sharon,

A Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement

(London: Mannheim Centre for Criminology,

LSE: 2008; Birckhead, Tamar, ‘Children in Isolation: The Solitary Confinement of Youth’ (2015) 50

Wake Forest Law Review

1; United Kingdom National Preventive Mechanism, ‘Guidance: Isolation in

Detention’, January 2017.

For long-standing soft-law standards here see: United Nations,

Standard Minimum Rules for the

Treatment of Prisoners,

30 August 1955;

UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of

Justice

(Beijing Rules) (1985);

UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form

of Detention or Imprisonment

(A/RES/43/173, 9 December 1988); Council of Europe: Committee of

Ministers,

Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the

European Prison Rules,

11 January 2006, Rec(2006)2, (European

Prison Rules).

Principle 7 of the

UN Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners

(A/RES/45/111, 28 March

1991).

Government of Denmark, Sixth Report to HRC (CCPR/C/DNK/6, 10 November 2015), para. 131.

Disciplinærbekendtgørelsen

§ 1, stk. 2;

Varetægsbekentgorelsen

§ 89.

Solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure increased from 1289 placements in 2001, peaking at

3,044 cases in 2011, to an estimated 2995 placements in 2016: Kriminalforsorgens årlige statistik

beregninger.

Kriminalforsorgen, Press Release: ‘Stigning i brug af strafcelle skyldes mobiltelefoner’, 31 March 2017.

LOV nr 641 af 08/06/2016 om aendring af lov om fuldbyrdelses af straf m.v. (styrket indsats mod

mobiltelefoner I faenglser mv.).

Sentence Enforcement Act

§ 70 and Retsplejelvoen § 775..

CAT, Concluding Observations on Denmark (CAT/C/DNK/CO/6-7, 4 February 2016), para. 33; HRC,

Concluding Observations, Denmark (CCPR/C/DNK/CO/6, 10 November 2015), para. 24.

Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre, ‘Essex paper 3: Initial guidance on

the interpretation and implementation of the UN Nelson Mandela Rules’, February 2017, p. 89: Initial

guidance on the interpretation and implementation of the Nelson Mandela Rules (2016); International

Psychological Trauma Symposium, ‘The Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary

Confinement’ (9 December 2007), p. 4.

SRT, Reply to Questions Raised by Member States during the Interactive Dialogue at the 66th

Session of the UN General Assembly, 18 October 2011, p. 8; Report of the SRT (A/66/268, 5 August

2011), para. 26.

SRT, Interim report of the SRT (A/68/295, 9 August 2013), para. 61.

CPT, Report on the Visit to Spain in 2011, CPT/Inf (2013) 6, para. 75.

Rule 67 of the

UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty

(1990).

Rule 22 of the

UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for

Women Offenders

(2010).

CRC, Concluding Observations on El Salvador (CRC/C/15/Add.232, 30 June 2004), para 36(a); CRC,

Concluding Observations on Singapore (CRC/C/15/Add.220, 27 October 2003), para 45(d); CRC,

General Comment No. 10 (CRC/C/GC/10, 25 April 2007), para. 89; CRC/C/DNK/CO/3, para. 59(a);

CRC/C/DNK/CO/3, para. 66(b); CRC/C/SWE/CO/5, para. 26(a); CRC/C/SWE/CO/4, 26 June 2009, para.

71(b).

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

CAT, Observations of the Committee against Torture on the revision of the

United Nations

Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

(SMR) (CAT/C/51/4, 16 December 2013),

para. 32.

ECHR, ‘Detention and Mental Health’, Factsheet, September 2016.

A.B. v. Russia,

1439/06, 14 October 2010, para. 104.

SPT, Ninth annual report of the SPT (CAT/C/57/4, 22 March 2016), para. 64.

CPT, European Standards, ‘Substantive sections of the CPT’s General Reports’, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 -

Rev. 2015, p. 37, para. 64, (European Standards (2015)).

Ibid,

para. 48.

CPT, 21

General Report, CPT/Inf (2011) 28, p. 40; see also CPT, European Standards (2015), p. 30.

CPT, 21

General Report, CPT/Inf (2011) 28, p. 41.

For a comprehensive review of literature see Smith, Peter Scharff, ‘The Effects of Solitary

Confinement on Prison Inmates: A Brief History and Review of the Literature’ (2006) 34

Crime and

Justice

441, pp. 444-450;

Ziglar v. Abbasi,

2016 WL 7449167 (2016),

Brief for Medical and Other

Scientific and Health-Related Professionals in Support of Respondents and Affirmance

(22 December

2016).

Shalev, Sharon,

A Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement

(London: Mannheim Centre for

Criminology, LSE: 2008).

Koch, Ida, ‘Mental and Social Sequelae of Isolation: The Evidence of Deprivation Experiments and

of Pretrial Detention in Denmark’, in Rolston, Bill, and Tomlinson, Mike (eds.)

The Expansion of

European Prison Systems,

Working Papers in European Criminology, No. 7, 119 (1986), p. 124 as

cited in Haney, Craig, Expert Report in

Ashker v. Governor of California.

Shalev, Sharon,

A Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement,

p. 79; International Psychological Trauma

Symposium, ‘The Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement’ (9 December

2007, Istanbul); Grassian, Stuart, ‘Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement’ (2006) 22

Washington

University Journal of Law and Policy

325, p. 331.

Haney, Craig, Expert Report in

Ashker v. Governor of California,

para. 27, lists symptoms that have

been documented as including: ‘appetite and sleep disturbances, anxiety, panic, rage, loss of

control, paranoia, hallucinations, and self-mutilations’ … ‘anxiety, withdrawal, hypersensitivity,

ruminations, cognitive dysfunction, hallucinations, loss of control, irritability, aggression, rage,

paranoia, hopelessness, a sense of impending emotional breakdown, self- mutilation, and suicidal

ideation and behavior’.

See for example, Sigurd Benjaminsen & Birgit Erichsen,

Selvmordsadfœrd Blandt Indsatte,

p. 16

(Copenhagen: Direktoratet for kriminalforsorgen (2002)) as cited in Scharff Smith, 2006, p. 498;

Kupers, Terry, ‘Isolated Confinement: Effective method for behavior change or punishment for

punishment’s sake?’ in Arrigo, Bruce, and, Bersot, Heather (eds.),

The Routledge Handbook of

International Crime and Justice Studies

(Routledge, 2013), p. 215; Matti Joukumaa, ‘Prison

suicide in

Finland, 1969-1992’

(1997) 89

Forensic Science International

167.

Smith, Peter Scharff, og Jacobsen, Janne,

Varetægtsfængsling: Danmarks hårdeste straf?

(Djøf:

2017), Kapitel 9, s. 156.

Adamsen, Mette Lindgaard, “Screeningsprojektet for psykisk sygdom”, Direktoratet for

Kriminalforsorgen, 2013 i Smith og Jacobsen, s. 157.

Koch, Ida,

Isolationens psykiske og sociale følgevirkninger,

60 Månedsskrift for Praktisk

Lægegerning, 382 (1982).

Haney, Craig, Expert Report in

Ashker v. Governor of California,

paras. 38 and 49.

WHO, ‘Health in Prisons: A WHO Guide to the Essentials in Prison Health’ (2007), p. 2.

See

EPR,

Rule 40.

Haney, Craig, and Lynch, Mona, ‘Regulating Prisons of the Future: A Psychological Analysis of

Supermax and Solitary Confinement’ (1997) 23

Review of Law and Social Change

477, p. 539.

Shames, Alison, Jessa Wilcox, and Ram Subramanian,

‘Solitary Confinement: Common

Misconceptions and Emerging Safe Alternatives’

(New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015), p.

12.

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

Reiter, Keramet, and Blair, Thomas, ‘Chapter 9 - Punishing Mental Illness: Trans-institutionalization

and Solitary Confinement in the United States’ in Reiter, Keramet, and, Konig, Alexa,

Extreme

Punishment: Comparative Studies in Detention, Incarceration and Solitary Confinement

(Palgrave

Macmillan, 2015), p. 178.

Ibid.,

pp. 185-186.

The Danish Government, upon ethical concerns raised by Danish doctors regarding effectively

pronouncing prisoners fit for solitary confinement, reserved the right to comply with this monitoring

requirement.

Nielsen, Bjarke, and, Kolind, Torsten, ‘Offender and/or client?: fuzzy institutional identities in

prison-based drug treatment in Denmark’ (2016) 18(2)

Punishment and Society

131, p. 144.

Rua, Marte, ‘Hva gjør fengselsleger?: En institusjonell etnografi om isolasjon og helse’, Tromsø

Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi Juridisk fakultet Universitetet i Oslo Bokserien nr. 1/2012.

Disciplinærvejledning

§ 1.3.

Stk. 4.

Den, der i et arresthus eller lukket fængsel som anholdt, fængslet eller forvaringsanbragt

uretmæssigt besidder en mobiltelefon eller lignende kommunikationsudstyr, straffes med bøde eller

fængsel indtil 6 måneder. På samme måde straffes besøgende og andre personer, som uretmæssigt

medtager en mobiltelefon eller lignende kommunikationsudstyr i et arresthus eller lukket fængsel.

Tilsvarende straffes en varetægtsarrestant, der som frihedsberøvet i institution m.v. uden for

kriminalforsorgen uretmæssigt besidder en mobiltelefon eller lignende kommunikationsudstyr.

Engbo, Hans Jørgen,

Straffuldbyrdelsesret

(2. Udgave, Djøf: 2005); Danish Institute for Human Rights,

Open Letter to the Ministry of Justice dated 26 April2016.

Bekendtgørelse om udståelse af strafcelle, anvendelse af forhørscelle og behandlingen af

disciplinærsager (disciplinærstrafbekendtgørelsen): BEK nr 1036 af 23. juni 2016.

Vejledning om behandlingen af sager om disciplinærstraf, konfiskation og modregning af

erstatningsbeløb (disciplinærstrafvejledningen): VEJ nr 9715 af 11. juli 2016.

Engbo, Hans Jørgen, and Smith, Peter Scharff,

Fængsler Og Menneskerettigheder

(Kbh: Jurist- Og

Økonomforbundet, 2012).

Retten i Glostrup 11 July 2013. The two other decisions relate to decision by Retten i Odense 13

Janaury 2014 and decision by Retten I Glostrup 3 October 2013.

Folketingets Ombudsmand, Tilsynsmanual Dok.nr. 15/05108-57.

Guenther, Lisa,

Solitary Confinement: Social Death and Its Afterlives

(University of Minnesota

Press, 2013), pp. 221-222.

Coyle, Andrew,

A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management: Handbook for Prison Staff,

(International Centre for Prison Studies, 2

Ed: 2009), p. 15.

UNODC,

Handbook on the Management of High-Risk Prisoners

(New York, 2016), p. 14.

Sim, J., ‘Chapter 11: An inconvenient criminological truth: pain, punishment and prison officers’ in

Bennett, Jamie, et al (eds.),

Understanding Prison Staff

(Routledge, Oxford: 2012), p. 197.

Crewe, B., Bennett, J., and Wahidin, A., ‘Chapter 1 – Introduction’ in Bennett, J., et al (eds),

Understanding Prison Staff

(Routledge, Oxford: 2012), p. 3.

Liebling, Alison, ‘Why Prison Staff Culture Matters’ in Byrne, James, et al, (eds.)

The Culture of

Prison Violence

(Pearson Education, 2008), p. 107.

Lucas, Joseph, and, Jones, Matthew, ‘An Analysis of the Deterrent Effects of Disciplinary

Segregation on Institutional Rule Violation Rates’ (2017)

Criminal Justice Policy Review

1, p. 1.

Bennion, Elizabeth, ‘Banning the Bing: Why Extreme Solitary Confinement is Cruel & Far Too Usual

Punishment’ (2015) 90

Indiana Law Journal

741, p. 742.

Smith, Peter Scharff og Koch, Ida, ‘Isolation – et fængsel i fængslet, i Kriminalistiske pejlinger’

(2015) i af Britta Kyvsgaard (red.), Jørn Vestergaard (red.), Lars Holmberg (red.) og Thomas Elholm

(red.),

Kriminalistiske pejlinger - Festskrift til Flemming Balvig

(DJØF: 2015), s. 312.

Betænkning 1358 om isolation under varetægtsfængsling, 1998.

Andersen, H.S., Sestoft, D. og Lillebæk T., ‘Ganser syndrome after solitary confinement in prison: A

short review and a case report’ (2001) 55

Nordic Journal of Psychiatry

199-201; Andersen, H.S.,

Sestoft, D., Lillebæk T., Gabrielsen, G. og Hemmingsen, R., ‘Heroin dependence: Consequences and

precursors related to route of administration’ (1999a) 53

Nordic Journal of Psychiatry

153-158;

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

Andersen, H.S., Sestoft, D., Lillebæk T., Gabrielsen, G. og Hemmingsen, R., ‘Validity of the General

Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) in a prison population, Data from a randomized sample of prisoners

on remand’ (2002) 25

International Journal Law and Psychiatry

573-580; Andersen, H.S., Sestoft, D.,

Lillebæk T., Gabrielsen, G., Hemmingsen, R. og Kramp, P., ‘A longitudinal study of prisoners on

remand. Prevalence, incidence and psychopathology in solitary vs. non-solitary confinement’ (2000)

102

Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica

19-25; Andersen, H.S., Sestoft, D., Lillebæk T., Gabrielsen, G.,

Hemmingsen, R. og Kramp, P., ‘A longitudinal study of prisoners on remand, Repeated measures of

psychopathology in the initial phase of solitary vs. non-solitary confinement’ (2003) 26

International

Journal Law of Psychiatry

165-177; Andersen, H.S., Sestoft, D., Lillebæk T., Mortensen, E.L. og Kramp,

P., ‘Psychopathy and psychopathological profiles in prisoners on remand’ (1999b) 99

Acta

Psychiatrica Scandinavica

33-39.; Sestoft, D., Andersen, H.S., Lillebæk T. og Gabrielsen, G., ‘Impact of

solitary confinement on hospitalization among Danish prisoners in custody’ (1998) 21

International

Journal of Law and Psychiatry

99-108; for an overview see Smith, Peter Scharff, ‘The Effects of

Solitary Confinement: Commentary on One Year Longitudinal Study of the Psychological Effects of

Administrative Segregation’ (June 2011)

Corrections & Mental Health.

Retsplejelovens nr. 243 af 8. juni 1978, § 770; Betænkning 1469 om varetægtsfængsling i isolation

efter, 2000-loven, s. 24; see also Smith, Peter Scharff og Koch, Ida, ‘Isolation – et fængsel i fængslet, i

Kriminalistiske pejlinger’ (2015), ss. 314-216.

See for example: Politiken, ‘Kronik: I statens varetægt’, 6. november 2005; Politiken, ‘Ledende

artikel: Sejlivet isolation’, 9. december 2005; Information, ‘Regeringen: Færre danskere skal fængsles

i isolation’, 4. oktober 2006, Politiken, ‘Faste tidsrammer for varetægtsfængsling’, 18. februar 2005.

Smith, Eva,

Straffeprocessen

(2. Udgave ed. Kbh: Thomson, 2008).

Rigsadvokatens redegørelse: Anvendelse af varetægtsfængsling i isolation 2015, 20 Oktober 2016;

Rigsadvokaten: Redegørelse om anvendelsen af varetægtsfængsling I isolation I 2014, 9. juli 2015:

Bilag D - Oversigt over det samlede antal varetægtsfængslinger samt det samlede antal afsluttede

varetægtsfængslinger i isolation i absolutte tal og i % af det samlede antal varetægtsfængslinger for

2001-2014.

Rigsadvokatens redegørelse: Anvendelse af varetægtsfængsling i isolation 2015, 20 okt 2016, s. 5.

Ibid.

CAT, Concluding Observations on Denmark (CAT/C/DNK/CO/6-7, 4 February 2016), para. 33; HRC,

Concluding Observations, Denmark (CCPR/C/DNK/CO/6, 10 November 2015), para. 24.

Execution of Sentences Act,

section 39.

Execution of Sentences Act,

section 37; other uses include: placement for high security prisoners in

special units, section 17.2; for building or staff conditions necessitating exclusion; and for voluntary

exclusion, section 37 (8).

National Institution for Human Rights and Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of Oslo,

‘Thematic Report: Use of Solitary Confinement in Prison: Norwegian Law and Practice in a Human

Rights Perspective’ (Oslo, 22 June 2012), p. 7.

Prop. 1975/76:165 om ändring i lagen (1974:203) om kriminalvård i anstalt cited in JO dnr 3193-

2006 and in JO dnr 6027-2015.

Prop. 1975/76:165 om ändring i lagen (1974:203), p. 5.

Prop. 1975/76:165 om ändring i lagen (1974:203), pp. 13-14.

CPT, Report of the Visit to Sweden in 2009, CPT/Inf (2009) 34, para. 46.

United Kingdom National Preventive Mechanism, ‘Guidance: Isolation in Detention’, January 2017.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Grendon, 5-16

August 2013, p. 26.

Bennett, Jamie, and, Shuker, Richard, ‘The potential of prison-based democratic therapeutic

communities’ (2017) 13 (1)

International Journal of Prisoner Health;

Bennett, Peter, and Bennett,

Jamie, ‘Resisting Supermax: Rediscovering a Humane Approach to Management of High Risk

Prisoners’ (2015) (unpublished manuscript).

Ibid.

REU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 255: Præsentationsmateriale udleveret til brug for foretræde for Retsudvalget den 27/4-17, fra DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture

See Shames, Alison, Jessa Wilcox, and Ram Subramanian,

‘Solitary

Confinement: Common

Misconceptions and Emerging Safe Alternatives’ (New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015).

National Commission on Correctional Health Care, ‘Position Statement: Solitary Confinement

(Isolation)’ (Chicago, Illinois: National Commission on Correctional Health Care Board of Directors,

adopted April 10, 2016); American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice: Treatment of

Prisoners (Third Edition), 2010; Browne, Angela, Alissa Cambier, and Suzanne Agha, ‘Prisons Within

Prisons: The Use of Segregation in the United States’ (2011) 24 (1)

Federal Sentencing Reporter

46.

See Gottschalk, Marie, ‘Staying Alive: Reforming Solitary Confinement in U.S. Prisons and Jails’,

125 125

Yale Law Journal Forum

253 (2016); Raemisch, Rick, and Wasko, Kellie, ‘Open the Door—

Segregation Reforms in Colorado’, Colorado Department of Corrections (2015).

Heiden, Zachary,

‘Change

is Possible: A Case Study of Solitary Confinement Reform in Maine’,

American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, 2013.

See New York Campaign for Alternatives to Isolated Confinement: http://nycaic.org/legislation/