CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 juillet 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 14610/89                       by Arne TREHOLT                       against Norway             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 July 1991, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   B. MARXER                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 21 December 1988 by Arne Treholt against Norway and registered on 2 February 1989 under file No. 14610/89;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 10 November 1989, 5 April, 28 August 1990 and 5 February 1991 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 5 April and 7 June 1990;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a Norwegian citizen, born in 1942.   He is at present serving a 20-year prison sentence in Norway.   Before the Commission he is represented by Professor Ole Krarup, Copenhagen, Denmark.   A.       The particular facts of the case           On 20 January 1984 the applicant, then a high-ranking civil servant in the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was arrested at Fornebu airport near Oslo and charged with espionage.   The applicant was detained on remand.   On 20 June 1985 he was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment by the Eidsivating High Court (lagmannsrett).   The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court (Høyesterett).   He later withdrew his appeal and on 4 April 1986 he filed a petition with the High Court for the re-opening of his case. On 11 February 1988 the High Court rejected the applicant's petition, a rejection which was upheld by the Supreme Court on 15 August 1988.           The present case concerns the treatment to which the applicant has been subjected whilst in detention on remand and while serving his prison sentence.   1.       Detention on remand at Oslo Police Headquarters, 20 January -         5 March 1984           From the day of his arrest, 20 January 1984, until 5 March 1984, i.e. approximately seven weeks, the applicant was kept at Oslo police headquarters.   Prior to his arrest the Police Security Service, in consultation with inter alia the Ministry of Justice, considered that none of the usual remand prisons had the staff and facilities which appeared to be necessary in the present case.   Accordingly it was decided to detain the applicant at Oslo police headquarters and for this purpose three rooms were prepared prior to the arrest: an interrogation room of approximately 17 square metres, a sleeping room of approximately 11 square metres and a room of approximately 26 square metres available for the warders and the applicant.           On 23 January 1984 the applicant was brought before the Oslo Court of Interrogation (Oslo forhørsrett) where the prosecution requested detention on remand for 12 weeks including prohibitions of visits and correspondence as well as a prohibition of reading newspapers, listening to the radio and watching television.   The Court granted the prosecution's request and the applicant did not lodge any protest, nor did he appeal against the Court's decision to the High Court.           At police headquarters the applicant was interrogated in the interrogation room daily by two police officers.   When not under interrogation the applicant could either stay in the office which was converted into a bedroom or in the room which was at the disposal of the prison warders and the applicant.   He was under constant surveillance and one to two police officers sat outside the bedroom, the door of which was left ajar.   The applicant submits that he was not   permitted to turn out the lights whereas the Government submit that he could decide when to turn out the light in his bedroom.           The Government have submitted, and it has not been contested, that, regardless of the decision of the Interrogation Court, the applicant was allowed to watch sports programmes on television and the police also permitted visits from his wife and his father, the first of which took place two days after his arrest.   The frequency varied according to the visitors' ability to come.           As regards use of the toilets the Government submit that the applicant was accompanied by one policeman who remained standing in the doorway in the corridor.   For the first few days, the officer demanded that the door to the toilet be left open.   He could then see the applicant fairly clearly without looking at him directly.   After some days, the officer permitted the door to be closed but not locked. In this respect the applicant submits that during his visits to the toilet he had to sit with the door open face to face with a policeman.           The windows of the bedroom and the interrogation room were made of wired glass.   The windows of the third room where the warders and the applicant could spend time after the interrogations were made of normal glass.           As regards medical attention during his stay at police headquarters the applicant submits that he was not offered to see a doctor at all.   The Government submit that he was offered an opportunity to speak with both a clergyman and a physician but refused to speak with either.   Furthermore the applicant's defence counsel did not request the attendance of a doctor on behalf of the applicant, nor did counsel ever complain that the applicant had in vain asked to see a doctor.           Finally the Government submit that, after the preliminary interrogations, the applicant was allowed to spend some time on the roof of the police headquarters.   The applicant was allowed to decide how often he wished to have fresh air.   However, as the roof was not designed for such purpose the applicant was handcuffed to a police officer when on the roof.   The applicant was also allowed to exercise on a regular basis in the underpath between the police headquarters and the Oslo District Prison.   The applicant has not disputed these facts.   2.       Detention on remand at Drammen District Prison,         5 March 1984 - 29 July 1985           On 5 March 1984 the applicant was transferred to the Drammen District Prison where he stayed until 29 July 1985, i.e. approximately 1 year and 4 1/2 months.   The applicant was placed in solitary confinement from his arrival until 2 June 1985.   The applicant's trial commenced on 25 February 1985 and lasted 50 days.   As indicated above he was convicted by the High Court on 20 June 1985 and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.           During his stay at Drammen District Prison the applicant lived in an area formerly reserved for three female inmates.   These quarters comprised three cells, a corridor and a room for the prison guards. The cells were used by the applicant as bedroom, visitors' room and storage room respectively.   The guard room served as living room.   The   applicant also had access to a so-called open-air cell on the prison roof.   This cell consisted of a closed room of some 12 to 14 square metres without any windows.   The only connection the room had with open air consisted of the possibility of pushing aside a hatch in the roof which let in air through a wiregate.           During the period at Drammen the applicant was constantly supervised by a shift of seven prison guards.   There was one man on duty during the day and two men during the night.   During the night the guard on duty was outside in the corridor.   The cell door was left ajar and the applicant was looked after at three to five minutes' intervals.   He did not have contacts with other prisoners until 5 June 1985.   He was then permitted to lead certain physical exercise programmes for the other inmates.   He had 114 guarded leaves from the prison, mainly to go to Oslo police headquarters for questioning or, after the opening of his trial, to appear before the High Court.   a)       Visits and correspondence           On 13 April 1984 the Interrogation Court extended the applicant's detention on remand until 9 July 1984.   The Court also extended the general prohibition as regards access to newspapers, radio and television.   Nevertheless the police permitted the applicant to watch all television programmes and to listen to all radio programmes except those dealing with his own case.   He was also allowed to read four newspapers to which his defence counsel subscribed, except articles concerning his own case.   The applicant was also allowed to receive another newspaper together with periodicals and other reading material provided that the policemen were given an opportunity to check this material in advance.           On 19 June 1984 the Interrogation Court prolonged the applicant's detention on remand once more and decided furthermore:   (translation)   "With the exception of programmes concerning his case, the accused shall be permitted to watch television and listen to the radio.   He shall also have general access to foreign periodicals and newspapers, as well as periodicals concerning economics and similar subjects.   Newspapers shall be delivered to the accused after they have been checked by the police."           Subsequent decisions of the Court of 4 September, 31 October and 28 December 1984 did not alter this situation.   The applicant did not appeal against any of these decisions to the High Court.           During his stay at Drammen the question of visits was dealt with by the Court in the decisions mentioned above.   The Court decided each time to allow supervised visits by the immediate family which was interpreted by the authorities as including his son, his father, his wife, his sister and his sister-in-law and brother.           When the applicant's trial commenced on 25 February 1985 these visits were no longer supervised.   Subsequent to the conviction on 20 June 1985 his contacts with others increased considerably, in particular due to numerous visits by representatives of the mass media.           As regards correspondence the Government submit that the legal basis for the restrictions of applicant's right to send and receive letters was Section 54 of the Prison Act and the decisions of the Court mentioned above.   According to those decisions, letters to and from the applicant were to be submitted to the Court which would determine whether or not they could be received or sent.   The applicant submits that he was not allowed to receive or write any letters for a period lasting until 5 September 1984.   From then on, he submits, he was subjected to extensive censorship on incoming and outgoing post.   b)       The applicant's health situation at Drammen           At Drammen District Prison the applicant's wish to stay physically fit was complied with by installing an ergometric bicycle and a treadmill.   The medical record kept at Drammen gives no indication of any serious somatic illness.   This record is based on weekly, and sometimes more frequent, visits from the prison doctor.           The applicant, however, suffered from such mental strain that the prison doctor on 4 April 1984 asked for the assistance of a psychiatrist.   Psychiatric assistance was eventually established on 25 May 1984.           In a statement of 12 March 1986, i.e. approximately 8 months after the applicant had left Drammen, the prison doctor concluded as regards his stay there:           (Translation)           "(the applicant's) physical health was satisfactory during his         imprisonment at Drammen.   But his mental state was in certain         periods so strained that it verged on loss of reality (in         particular) during the worst period April-May 1984.   I did not         consider him suicidal."   3.       Placement at Ila National Penal and Preventive Detention         Institution (Ila), 29 July 1985 - 20 June 1986           Subsequent to the applicant's conviction on 20 June 1985 he was transferred to Ila.   He arrived there on 29 July 1985 and stayed until 20 June 1986, i.e. approximately eleven months.           Ila is a maximum security prison comprising three buildings. The applicant was placed in Section K which is considered the most "escape-proof" of the buildings.   The applicant was placed there as he had been convicted of a serious crime and was considered a potential escape risk.   Section K is a closed section intended for nine inmates. There were six other inmates in Section K when the applicant arrived.           At Ila the applicant was subjected to the same prison regime as other inmates.   He was locked up in his cell of 6 square metres from 9 o'clock in the evening until 7 o'clock in the morning when he had   half an hour for toilet and breakfast together with the other six inmates.   Lunch was served at 11-11.30 hours and dinner at 15.00-16.00 hours when he was outside in the fresh air until 17.30 hours together with the other inmates of the closed wing of the prison.   From 17.30 hours and until 21.00 hours he was allowed to associate with the other six inmates in a "corridor" of approximately 20 x 3 metres.           The applicant submits that the other inmates in Section K were mentally retarded or violent psychotics.   Therefore, he submits, he experienced several dangerous incidents due to the fact that he was publicly known and subject to curiosity and provocations by the other inmates.   There were fist-fights and incidents with inmates trying to stab each other.   The applicant also submits that the other inmates left their excrement on the floor of the toilet and also ate their food with excrement spread all over their bodies.           The Government submit that, as Section K housed convicts serving long sentences, a number of them had been convicted of crimes such as murder, rape and other grave sexual offences.   Other inmates were serving time for selling drugs, assault and battery, theft and other economic offences.   Consequently there were, and will be at any given time, a number of inmates who were suffering from some kind of mental instability and disorder.   It cannot be ruled out, the Government submit, that inmates in need of treatment were placed in Section K. The prison records do not show, however, dangerous incidents involving the applicant.           As regards the sanitary conditions the Government submit that according to the prison records there was one inmate at Ila, during the applicant's stay there, who was brain damaged and had problems controlling his bodily functions.   This person did not, however, stay in Section K.           As regards visits the prison rules gave inmates either one visit of two hours a week or two visits of one hour each.   The applicant, however, received 316 visits during the 11 months he stayed at Ila, many of which lasting more than two hours.   The applicant had 25 guarded leaves, most of them to go to the Oslo City Court to give evidence in his own case.   There were no restrictions on the applicant's correspondence, but his outgoing mail was controlled insofar as his letters were read by the prison inspector.   After 1 January 1986 the applicant was permitted to attend French classes twice a week for two hours.   4.       Placement at Ullersmo National Penitentiary (Ullersmo),         20 June 1986 - 8 August 1988           On 20 June 1986 the applicant was transferred to Ullersmo and placed in the so-called receiving ward.   The reason for this was that the authorities had found plans showing that the applicant would try to escape from prison.        a) General prison conditions           The confinement in the receiving ward lasted until 23 January 1987, i.e. approximately 7 months.   During this period the applicant spent an average of about 2 1/2 hours every day with his fellow inmates.   Furthermore he spent one hour a day in fresh air in the wintertime, three hours a day in the summertime.           At the initiative of the applicant, and beginning on 22 August 1986, a physical training programme under the auspices of the recreation department/sports officer was offered in the large prison yard.   The applicant participated in this programme twice a week, for about one hour each time.           With regard to visits as well as other forms of social contact, the range of the applicant's activities was wider than that of other inmates in the institution.   During the period 28 June - 7 October 1986 the applicant was allowed unsupervised visits by his wife and his father.   During the same period he received regular visits (supervised by a police officer) by his sister and his brother. After 7 October their visits were unsupervised as well.           As regards visits by others than the applicant's immediate family, he received approximately 30 visits by defence counsels, real estate agents and other persons the applicant wanted to see.   As a rule such visits lasted one hour or more.   From 7 October 1986 to 23 January 1987, the applicant received about 60 visits by family, friends, defence counsels and representatives of the press.   Some days the applicant had more than one visit.   He was allowed approximately 200 telephone calls to persons outside the prison.   He also had contact with professionals in the prison.   He spent time with the psychologist (24 times), representatives of the prison health services (19 times), the physiotherapist (21 times) and the priest (9 times).   In addition the applicant was visited by the prison director/deputy director (10 times) and the prison inspector (10 times).           On 23 January 1987 the applicant was moved from the confinement in the receiving ward to an open part of Ullersmo and placed together with other inmates.   He submits that he was placed with common criminal offenders of whom many were drug addicts.   The Government submit that the reason for placing the applicant in the company of persons convicted of serious crimes was a consequence of the fact that he himself was serving a long sentence.   According to the practice in Norwegian prisons it is the length of the sentence and not the nature of the crime or the background of the inmate that determines his placement.           During his stay at Ullersmo the applicant was on 29 occasions granted guarded leave, of which several were of a social character. One of these leaves involved a medical check-up in a nearby hospital in November 1986 where, the applicant submits, he was forced to kneel down handcuffed when an X-ray of his sinuses was taken.   The Government submit that the applicant was handcuffed to a prison officer since he was still considered an escape risk.   The reason why the applicant had to kneel down was the X-ray equipment itself which comprised a "kneeling chair" specially designed by the hospital for the purpose.           On 19 January 1988 the applicant had served four years of his prison sentence but was nevertheless not allowed unguarded leaves of absence from the prison, otherwise granted to inmates having served such a period of time.   The reason for this was the fact that the military still considered the applicant to be a security risk and that he should not therefore be allowed uncontrolled stays outside prison. On several occasions the applicant requested unguarded leaves of absence but these requests were all refused by the competent administrative authorities.        b) The applicant's health situation at Ullersmo           As indicated above the applicant arrived at Ullersmo on 20 June 1986 and was placed in the receiving ward.           At the request of the applicant's counsel, Dr.   Håvard Friberg, who had examined the applicant during his stay at Drammen and Ila, met the applicant on 13 August 1986.   On 5 October 1986 Dr. Friberg submitted a statement which concluded:           (Translation)           "(The applicant's) physical state of health appeared clearly         worse.   He appeared weaker with less enthusiasm and was marked         by less training than before.           He was depressed and marked by hopelessness, pessimism and         worries.   Periodically he had thoughts of harming himself.   I         had not previously registered such thoughts from (the applicant).           He experienced an incipient dissolution of internal norm systems         and control mechanisms and therefore also an increasing fear of         not being able to control emotional and physical reactions.         He had developed psychosomatic reactions such as nausea,         headache, stomach cramps and he had developed increasing         feelings of claustrophobia.           All in all I experienced that his personality was about to         be subverted without his being able to use the ways of managing         this which previously had been effective.   I would not         exclude that serious health problems could develop unless         effective countermeasures are used.           I would recommend that you (i.e. the applicant's counsel)         contact the prison doctor and the prison psychologist in         order to find a regime which can prevent such development         from occurring."           On 23 January 1987 the applicant was moved to an open part of Ullersmo and placed together with other inmates.           On 22 March 1988 the prison doctor at Ullersmo, Mr.   Henrik Gjertsen, requested Professor Odd Steffen Dalgaard to submit an opinion on the applicant's mental situation in the light of the applicant's prison conditions.   In his letter Mr.   Gjertsen wrote inter alia:           (Translation)           "(The applicant) is very self-disciplined and has a         'professional' appearance.   However, he is troubled by         increasing psychosomatic symptoms, a feeling of hopelessness         and increasing paranoia.   Needless to say that the refusal         to reopen his trial was a hard blow.           (The applicant) is a special prisoner who is subjected to         special security measures.   He is only let out for court         hearings in which he is a party himself, in case of serious         illness in the closest family, i.e. wife and father, and in         case of necessary medical treatment which the prison cannot           provide.   In such cases he is subjected to severe security         measures which inter alia involve the use of handcuffs and         the presence of three prison officers.           These measures in regard to the applicant's prison regime were         introduced in the autumn of 1987, after a period where he had         had relatively regular leaves of absence to visit his wife, and         for medical examinations and treatment outside the prison.         This was based on his own and his wife's health situation.         The assessment of whether leaves of absence should be granted         or not is now made by the director (of the prison).   On the         basis of this tightening up of (the applicant's) prison         regime the interdisciplinary team at Ullersmo submitted         a statement of 13 November 1987 to the prison authorities.         This was made public in the press.   Furthermore, the         psychologist Thore Boy Rist has not, for the same reason,         found it ethically defensible to continue as (the         applicant's) psychologist.   This after working as (the         applicant's) psychologist for 11/2 years.           The prison health department personnel feel that our         professional assessments have no weight in this case and the         impression remains that the prison authorities are of the         opinion that we are being manipulated by (the applicant).         This leads to the conclusion that an independent expert         should assess (the applicant's) mental state of health.           Secondly, we would like an evaluation of (the applicant's)         state of health in relation to the special treatment he is         subjected to, in particular the extended use of handcuffs,         the number of prison officers necessary when leaving         the prison premises and the very limited possibilities of         being together with the closest relatives."           In his opinion of 15 May 1988 Professor Dalgaard concluded as follows:           (Translation)           "Subsequent to (the applicant's) arrest his mental state has         varied.   During the first period of strict isolation he         was, according to the psychiatrist in charge, close to         developing a psychotic condition.   Later he developed a         number of psychosomatic problems, such as headache, dizziness         and stomachache and he has suffered from fears.   The mood has         varied and has alternated between optimism and despair and         hopelessness.           During the last 6 months (the applicant's) state of health         has deteriorated in that the psychosomatic problems have         increased together with the fact that he has felt an         increasing powerlessness, drained of energy and courage.         He has also been afraid of losing control over his emotions.           This deterioration must be seen in connection with three         elements, namely that the hope of reopening his trial         has disappeared, that the pressure due to the health problems of         his closest relatives has increased and that an expected         amelioration of his prison conditions has not occurred.           Under this increased pressure it appears that his         psychological defence mechanisms fail as he does no         longer let off steam through physical activity, engagement         in the problems of other prisoners or work on his own case.           Due to the latest developments and under the very strict         prison regime I consider that there is a great danger that         (the applicant's) mental state will deteriorate considerably.         First and foremost I see the following three possibilities:         that (the applicant) "escapes" into a psychosis, possibly with         paranoid ideas; that (the applicant's) aggression and bitterness         are turned inward with a risk of harming himself, possibly         suicide; or that (the applicant's) aggression and bitterness are         let off uncontrolled with a risk of harming others.   One may fear         a combination of the last two possibilities.           As a conclusion I would maintain that steps should soon         be taken to ameliorate (the applicant's) prison regime if         a serious deterioration of his state of mental health is to         be avoided.   It is of crucial importance that increased         possibilities for the applicant to be together with his wife         and family under adjusted normal conditions be created         and, as regards future prison conditions, that predictability         be increased.   I presuppose, of course, that such an         amelioration should go hand and hand with the security measures         the authorities find necessary at any given moment."   5.       Second placement at Ila National Penal and Preventive Detention         Institution, from 8 August 1988           On 8 August 1988 the applicant was transferred back to Ila at his own request.   He is at present serving his sentence there.        a) General prison conditions           Under the present regime the applicant gets breakfast between 7.00 and 7.30 hours, then stays in his cell until 11.00 hours when there is half an hour's break for lunch.   Dinner is served at 15.00 hours and the applicant may go outside in the fresh air from 16.00 to 17.30 hours.   Subsequently he may be together with other inmates until 20.45 hours.   The applicant maintains that he is constantly under heavy technical and physical surveillance.   There is bright light outside the cell windows which makes it difficult to sleep at night. Surveillance cameras have been introduced all over the prison and the applicant maintains that this is due to his being there.   Furthermore he maintains that he is followed by one or two guards wherever he moves outside his cell.           The Government submit that the applicant has been placed in Section I as from 9 August 1988 and that there has been no major change with regard to his living quarters.   As indicated before, Ila is a maximum security prison and the applicant is, according to the Government, living under the same conditions as other inmates except for the fact that three prison officers instead of two escort the applicant on guarded leave.        b) The applicant's health situation at Ila           Since his return to Ila a number of medical opinions concerning the applicant have been submitted, which in particular challenge the authorities' refusals to grant the applicant unguarded leaves of absence instead of guarded leaves.   On 28 June 1989 Professor Dalgaard submitted a medical statement in which he concluded:   (translation)   "...   Based upon my own impressions as well as the assessments of the Ila doctors I conclude that (the applicant's) health has deteriorated compared with the examination which was undertaken a year ago, although the deterioration is not a dramatic one.   His sufferings are of the same nature as the ones described in my previous medical statement but with certain symptoms being increased.   His psychosomatic sufferings are by way of headache, dizziness and temporary disturbance of sight, in other words sufferings of a migraine nature and these sufferings appear to have increased somewhat.   He has also shown a tendency of increased touchiness changing with a feeling of depression and apathy.     ...   As stressed strongly by (the applicant) as well as his wife, their relationship is of major significance to the health of both of them.   Should one of them fail, it will result in a critical situation also for the other part.   For this reason it is of major importance that as far as possible conditions be arranged enabling a more dignified way of being together than the one which is possible within the framework of the Ila Institution.   As I also did in my previous statement I therefore strongly emphasize the significance of a gradual liberalisation regarding the possibility of being together with the wife and other members of the family outside the Ila prison ..."           On 20 February 1990 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Oslo City Court in order to obtain a declaratory judgment stating that the authorities' refusal to grant unguarded leaves of absence was illegal.   The hearing was scheduled for 4-6 July 1990 but suspended as the Ministry of Justice decided on 22 June 1990 that unguarded leave of absence should be granted as the applicant was no longer considered a security risk.           Subsequently the applicant has had 18 unguarded leaves of absence during the period from 30 June 1990 to 29 June 1991, lasting from 6 hours to 5 days 2 hours.   The applicant withdrew his court case on 19 November 1990.   B.       Domestic law and practice           The statutory rules concerning treatment of prisoners are set out in the Prison Act (Fengselsloven) of 12 December 1958 with subsequent amendments.   Supplementary rules are given by the Central Prison Administration (Fengselsstyret) in the Prison Regulations of 12 December 1961 with subsequent amendments.   Placement, accomodation, etc.           Section 11 of the Prison Act reads as follows:   "When sentenced persons are placed in various institutions according to Sections 9 and 10, particular regard must be had to the person's age, criminal record, potential and abilities, receptiveness to training and influence, and to the nature of the offence.   An effort should be made to place sentenced persons who suffer from psychological or physical defects, or who for other reasons need special care, in institutions where the necessary treatment can be provided.   ..."           As regards accommodation, Section 16 of the Act prescribes as follows:   "Provided that space permits and there are no special reasons to the contrary, inmates shall be placed in single cells at night.   Inmates may, in accordance with specific rules, associate with one another during daytime when under necessary supervision.   Where treatment in association with other inmates is not applicable or is not deemed appropriate, inmates shall be treated in single cells.   No inmate may be kept in solitary confinement for more than a year without the permission of the Central Prison Administration.   Inmates in solitary confinement shall be visited each day by officers of the institution."           These provisions are supplemented by the Prison Regulations, Section 53.2 of which reads as follows:   "Subject to the restrictions deriving from Section 53.3, inmates shall be allowed to associate with one another on a daily basis.   In institutions which are suitable for this purpose, inmates shall be classified in groups which should preferably be placed in separate wards in the institution. When determining such classification and deciding whether an inmate is otherwise to be allowed to associate with other inmates, persons serving their first custodial sentence should as far as possible be kept separate from inmates who have previously served a custodial sentence.   Apart from this, classification of inmates should be determined on the basis of an overall evaluation of the individual inmate and his situation so that age, health, mental state, character, working capacity, need for training, length of sentence, etc. are taken into account. Unless otherwise decided in a specific case, inmates who are allowed to associate with other inmates shall be under constant supervision and control.   The time when inmates are to be allowed to spend time together and the duration of such contact shall be determined in advance."           Section 53.3 of the Prison Regulations also relates to freedom of movement:   "Inmates shall stay in their cells when they have not been ordered or given permission to spend time elsewhere.   Permission to move about outside the common room shall be limited to specific rooms or areas.   Inmates must not be allowed to move about freely in the buildings or on the grounds of the institution.   If an inmate is to move from one place to another within the institution, he shall be escorted by a prison officer unless it is defensible in the individual case to allow him to go alone.   The provisions of this section do not apply to open and semi-open institutions."           Section 81 of the Prison Regulations prescribes the following as regards persons remanded in custody during criminal investigation:   "Persons remanded in custody and other inmates who have not been sentenced to imprisonment must not, while staying in the institution, be subject to any restrictions other than those necessary to fulfil the purpose of such detention or to preserve order and security in the institution."           As regards access to open air and physical activities, Section 22 reads as follows:   "Inmates who work indoors shall as far as possible be permitted to spend at least an hour each day out of doors. On Sundays and holidays inmates shall as far as possible be allowed to spend a longer time out of doors.   Where there are suitable facilities, inmates should be allowed to engage in physical training and sports."   Visits, correspondence, etc.           As regards inmates' right to receive visits, Section 23 of the Prison Act provides as follows:   "According to specific rules, inmates shall be allowed to receive visits from their immediate family and other persons with whom it is important for them to have contact.   Visits may be refused when there is particular reason to believe that they may have a detrimental effect.   This also applies to visits from the inmate's immediate family.   Inmates may refuse to receive visits from others than persons in the service of the institution or persons who have been admitted to the institution on official business.   Visits from persons other than those mentioned in the third paragraph shall normally take place in the presence of a prison officer."           Section 64 of the Prison Regulations gives further details as regards visits.   The following are excerpts from the Regulations:   "Section 64.1.   General Provisions   According to the rules set out below, inmates shall be allowed to receive visits from their immediate family and other persons with whom it is important for them to have contact.   Visits may be refused when there is reason to believe that the implementation of control measures will not be sufficient to prevent disorderly conduct in connection with the visit.   Visits from children aged 3 to 14 years should be allowed only when they can be carried out in a way which takes the child's needs into consideration.   Inmates may refuse to receive visits from others than persons in the service of the institution or persons who have been admitted to the institution on official business."     ...   "Section 64.4.   Control in connection with visits   No control measures shall be implemented which are more extensive than what is necessary to prevent disorderly conduct in connection with a visit.   If it is deemed necessary for preventing objects from being smuggled in or out, the visit may be made conditional on the inmate's changing clothes both before and after the visit.   If such control is not considered to be sufficient, the inmate may be bodily searched before and after the visit.   When considered necessary in order to prevent disorderly conduct, an officer may supervise the visit without monitoring the conversation.   In cases where it is deemed particularly necessary, the officer may also monitor the conversation.   Visits which are to be monitored are not to be conducted in a foreign language unless permission to do so has been granted.   A glass partition between the inmate and the visitor may be used when other supervisory measures are not considered sufficient to prevent disorderly conduct in connection with the visit.   In other cases, a glass partition may only be used if the conditions for ordinary supervision of visits exist and the inmate himself wishes to use a glass partition instead of other control measures.   When there is special reason to believe that there is extensive drug abuse in the prison, the Central Prison Administration may - notwithstanding the provision of the first sentence of the third paragraph - consent to routine supervision of visits without monitoring conversations."   "Section 64.7.   Visits from defence counsel and lawyers   An inmate is entitled to receive unsupervised visits from his officially appointed defence counsel.   As regards visits f