CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 mai 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .sAF0B4C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .s3137C850 { width:204.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 48852/17 Fjotolf HANSEN against Norway The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 29   May   2018 as a Committee composed of:   Yonko Grozev, President,   Erik Møse,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 June 2017, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Fjotolf Hansen, formerly Anders Behring Breivik, is a Norwegian national who was born in 1979 and is in preventive detention. He was represented before the Court by Mr Ø. Storrvik, a lawyer practising in Oslo. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The acts of terrorism and the applicant’s conviction 3.     On 24 August 2012 the City Court ( tingrett ) convicted the applicant of acts of terrorism committed on 22 July 2011. He had set off a car bomb in the Government quarter in Oslo and attacked participants at a political youth camp on Utøya Island outside Oslo with semi-automatic weapons. He had killed 77 people and wounded 42. He was sentenced to preventive detention for 21 years, with a minimum of 10 years to be served, pursuant to Articles 39c and 39e of the 1902 Penal Code (see paragraph 140 below). In its judgment the City Court stated, inter alia : “Although none of the experts believe the defendant to be a borderline case, there seems to be agreement that he is ‘a special case’, as the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen write to conclude their supplementary report. The experts Husby and Sørheim touch upon similar ideas when they, in connection with the danger assessment, describe the defendant’s ‘uncommon symptom profile’ with a combination of affective flattening, persistent homicidal thoughts, solid delusions of a right to select victims and kill, combined with the lack of any identifiable cognitive impairment and with no disturbing sensory delusions like hallucinosis. The court itself is struck by the defendant’s wordy presentation of his fanatical far ‑ right extremist attitudes mixed with pretentious historical parallels and infantile symbolism. His conceptions are accompanied by an unfettered and cynical justification of the acts of violence as being ‘cruel, but necessary’. A recurring question during the trial has furthermore been the importance of the reported acts for the diagnostication. However, as was pointed out during several of the testimonies given by the expert witnesses, glorification of violence or extreme acts of violence do not form part of the ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for psychosis.” 4.     As reasons for the sentencing, the City Court stated, inter alia , the following: “Furthermore, at the time of the delivery of the judgment there is an imminent risk that the defendant will commit new murders and serious acts of violence. The court makes reference to the fact that the defendant believes that the murders at the Government District and on Utøya were legitimate acts, and that extreme violence is a necessary means to achieve his political goals. The defendant has in court also related his alternative plans, like blowing up the Royal Palace and newspaper editorial offices, and killing journalists at the SKUP conference. The murders at the Government District, the murders on Utøya and the defendant’s plans demonstrate the extreme violence he has the will and capacity to carry out. The defendant has furthermore stated that there will be more terror attacks; this is also written in his compendium. The thought of extreme violence and murder is evidently stimulating to the defendant. This was clearly seen in court when he described how he had planned to kill Gro Harlem Brundtland by decapitation. The defendant seemed excited during the description and gave the impression that he enjoyed giving it. In its assessment of the danger, the court has also attached importance to the defendant having demonstrated a capacity for planning the acts of terrorism without being discovered. The court also makes reference to the fact that the court-appointed expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen ... conclude that there is a ‘high risk of serious acts of violence in the future’, and in connection with this they make reference to the defendant stating that violence and terror are necessary to have his extreme political views prevail. The court-appointed expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim also concluded in their report that the risk of future violence was very high ... When deciding what importance to attach to the assessment made by the latter experts it must, however, be taken into consideration that their danger assessment is based on the precondition of psychotic delusions. The basic requirement of protection of society is linked to the risk of a repeat offence, but when assessing the need for such protection the perspective must be turned towards the future, ... There is no doubt that a sentence of imprisonment based on ordinary principles of sentencing in the case at hand would have been set at the maximum sentence under the law: 21 years of imprisonment. The defendant has, after several years of planning, carried out a bomb attack aimed at the central government administration and thus also at the country’s democratic institutions. He has killed 77 persons, most of whom were youths who were mercilessly shot face to face. The defendant subjected a large number of persons to acute mortal danger. Many of those affected have sustained considerable physical and/or psychological injuries. The bereaved and next of kin are left with unfathomable grief. The material damage is enormous. The cruelty of the defendant’s acts is unparalleled in Norwegian history. It follows from the Supreme Court’s practice that it takes a lot to assume that such a long sentence for a specific term is not considered sufficient to protect society against the danger a convicted person represents at the time of the delivery of the judgment ... Notwithstanding this, the court is in no doubt that also the basic requirement for preventive detention is fulfilled in this special case. If the defendant is to serve a 21-year prison sentence without release on probation, he will be 53 years old at the time of his release. Even though 21 years is a very long sentence, the court finds it improbable that the element of time per se will reduce the risk of a repeat offence. At the time of release the democracy that the defendant wants to abolish, will still exist. Norway will still have inhabitants of different ethnic backgrounds, different cultures and different religions. The defendant stated in court that he wants to continue his political struggle behind the prison walls. After having served his sentence, the defendant will most probably have the will and capacity to carry out many and very brutal murders. The experts Aspaas and Tørrissen, who believe the defendant suffers from personality disorders, write ... that ‘[t]he kind of personality pathology that has been found is not very accessible to therapy. Factors that worsen the prognosis of violence will be close contact with environments that acknowledge and support the observee’s political ideology and views on political violence’. The way the court sees it, a similar prognosis must be assumed even if the defendant’s personality were not to fulfil the fundamental diagnostic criteria for personality disorder, being rather the manifestation of deviant personality traits. This means that the defendant also after having served a 21-year prison sentence will be a very dangerous man. Against this background, the court is of the view that the requirements for imposing a sentence of preventive detention are fulfilled, and thus believes that a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed.” 2.     The applicant’s detention 5.     The applicant was transferred to Ila Detention and Security Prison (“Ila”) on 27 July 2011. There a maximum security department (a department with “ særlig høyt sikkerhetsnivå ” – a “particularly high level of security”) was established, and on 8 August 2011 the correctional services authorities, for the first time, made a decision that the applicant be confined to that department. Similar decisions have since been made every six months and the applicant has lodged unsuccessful administrative appeals against these decisions. Between July and September 2012 the applicant stayed at Telemark Prison, before returning to Ila. On 9 September 2013 he was again transferred to Telemark Prison and has since served there, also in a maximum security department. 6.     In general, domestic legislation provides that inmates in maximum security departments are not to interact with inmates in other departments, whereas it is left to the local correctional services authorities to decide whether multiple inmates confined to maximum security departments should be allowed to interact with each other. In Telemark Prison, the applicant has had three cells, including one for physical exercise and one for studies, with ventilation and windows. His cells have been normally furnished with, inter alia , a toilet, shower, refrigerator, television, video game console, books and pictures (see, further, paragraphs 44 and 133 below), and delimited by a security gate to the other areas of the department. The material conditions had been relatively similar at Ila. 3.     Proceedings before the City Court 7.     On 1 July 2015 the applicant instigated civil proceedings against the Norwegian Government, claiming that the conditions of his detention violated Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. He complained, notably, that there had been a breach of those provisions due to the extent of the security measures that had been put in place, including his being confined to maximum security departments and not being allowed to socialise with other inmates, his being subjected to body searches, use of handcuffs and control of his visits, correspondence and telephone calls. 8.     In its judgment of 20 April 2016 the City Court ( tingrett ) found that the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention had been violated, but not those under Article 8. As to Article 3, the City Court assessed first of all that the authorities should have made further attempts to socialise the applicant with other inmates, and in any event that the formal reasons given in the decisions confining the applicant to a maximum security department had not been sufficiently detailed on this matter. 4.     Proceedings before the High Court (a)     Introduction 9.     The Government appealed against the City Court’s judgment as concerned the finding of a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant appealed as concerned the finding that Article 8 had not been breached. 10.     The High Court ( lagmannsrett ) heard the case from 10 to 18   January 2017. Prior to the hearing, the High Court had taken evidence at Ila and Telemark Prison. The hearing took place at Telemark Prison. The applicant was present and represented by counsel. Ten witnesses were heard. 11.     In its judgment of 1 March 2017 the High Court found that none of the applicant’s rights under the Convention had been violated. (b)     The High Court’s assessment under Article 3 of the Convention 12.     As to Article 3 of the Convention, the High Court took as its general starting point case-law of the European Court of Human Rights such as Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, ECHR 2016; Piechowicz v.   Poland , no. 20071/07, 17 April 2012; Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom , nos. 24027/07 and 4 others, 10 April 2012; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands , no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003 ‑ II; and Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, ECHR 2006 ‑ IX. 13.     Turning to the concrete assessment of the conditions of the applicant’s detention, the High Court noted that there was extensive documentation both as concerned decisions on use of force, reports on the implementation of the sentence, and as to the applicant’s health. It stated that the parties largely agreed on the specific events that had taken place and which measures had been implemented; they disagreed instead on the assessments, in particular as concerned the risk relating to the applicant and the consequences of the security measures for the applicant and his health. i.     The risk relating to the applicant 14.     Starting with the risk assessment, the High Court noted that the type and seriousness of the crimes that had led to his sentencing was the central point of departure. It pointed out, inter alia , that most of the victims on Utøya had been youths at a political summer camp, whom the applicant had mercilessly shot face to face. In the sentencing, the City Court had relied on the assessments of court-appointed psychiatric experts, who had assessed that there was a high risk of serious violent acts in future; the applicant had shown the capacity to plan acts of terrorism over a number of years without being discovered. The City Court had considered that even after serving 21 years, the applicant would be very dangerous. The applicant believed that his criminal acts had been justified and that extreme violence was a necessary tool in order to achieve political goals. 15.     The High Court further noted that the acts of terrorism had been carried out in accordance with an extensive text (“compendium”) that the applicant had worked on for several years and published on the Internet on the day of the acts. This text also included a detailed manual for terrorism and plans for taking hostages and escaping from prison. 16.     The correctional services authorities had considered the risk related to the applicant on numerous occasions. This included six psychiatric assessments made between 18 August 2011 and 5 December 2016 and different assessments of the probability of different types of violent acts and their consequences. Questions concerning the risk had also been dealt with in weekly meetings about the applicant among the prison personnel, and the considerations during those meetings had been registered in monthly reports. There were also a number of other decisions that contained risk assessments. 17.     In one of the assessments, an extensive report dated 16   January 2013, a psychiatrist had considered that the applicant was suffering from dissocial and dramatising personality disorders and, inter alia , completely lacked remorse for what he had done and was entirely without empathy for those who had become victims of his acts. The report had concluded that, as concerned the risk relating to release on parole, if the applicant did not change his political beliefs considerably and go through a longer period of genuine remorse, depression and wishes that his acts could be undone, he would be likely to carry out violent acts again. As to the risk of violence in prison, it had been concluded, inter alia , that the applicant would be capable of taking hostages, harm prison officers or carry out other violent acts – also against himself – if he found this opportune. According to the report, the challenge was that, because of the applicant’s peculiar view of the world and his logic built upon that view, it would be difficult for the institution to understand when his motives might change. The applicant was considered as extremely self-centred and preoccupied with the spectacular. If he were to feel that he did not receive sufficient media attention, that the world was not interested in his analyses and that his affairs were forgotten, he would be capable of staging another spectacular event. With respect to impulsive violence, it was stated in the report that the applicant could be capable of committing less serious, impulsive acts of violence if he were to perceive anything in prison as a serious narcissistic offence, his way of thinking (“ hans hensiktsmessighetstenkning ”) could be challenged, and he would be capable of committing less serious, impulsive acts of violence in spite of his usually appearing very controlled. On the topic of violence against the applicant, it was stated in the report that if he were to interact with other inmates without meticulous supervision, one or several of the others could possibly try to “take him out”. 18.     In a new risk assessment of 5 December 2016 the psychiatrist had concluded that the risk of violence, for the most part, remained unaltered. The risk of violent acts in prison had somewhat decreased, but the psychiatrist pointed to certain factors that could increase the risk of planned violence in prison. She had stated that in her view, observation had to continue until well after the end, in January 2018, of the proceedings before the High Court, since it could be several years before the applicant would again receive any considerable media attention. She further considered that, even though the applicant functioned inconspicuously on a day-to-day-basis, one should never disregard the possibility of his having plans that also included violence. As concerned the risk of impulsive violence at that time, it was stated that one could not forget that the applicant was of the view that he could obtain weapons for use in a common department ( fellesskapsavdeling ) and that he had undoubtedly thought through how objects of daily life could be used as weapons. The psychiatrist opined that the applicant should be observed at a time when he received little response to his ideological initiatives and with respect to how this would cause stress to him. 19.     The psychiatrist had testified before the High Court and then stated that her assessments from 2013 were essentially appropriate also at the time of the hearing, both as concerned the diagnoses and with respect to the risk of new violence. She was further of the view that the applicant’s goal remained the same. He wanted to lead a fascist and “ethno-nationalist” revolt in Europe. He had by then turned towards neo-nazism, which she perceived as a pragmatic move to adjust to the surroundings. In her view, the risk of violence was primarily long-term – the applicant was relatively stable mentally and had shown that he could handle the day-to-day frustrations well; therefore the risk of violence in prison in the short-term was considered to have diminished. 20.     The applicant had, in his statement during the appeal hearing, submitted that since the autumn of 2012 he had opposed advancing his political goals by the use of violence. He had stated that his acts on 22   July 2011 had been intended as revenge for what nationalists had suffered since 1945. This revenge, he maintained, had been completed in 2011 and the applicant would abandon his political project if “ethno-nationalists” were allowed to participate in Norwegian democracy. 21.     The High Court noted that, after the applicant had reported Ila to the police for torture in 2013, he had followed up with a letter in which he had stated that, if he wanted to, he could attack prison officers with weapons for hitting or stabbing created from objects in his cell. In a letter to the correctional services authorities of 23 December 2014, he had informed them that he was considering establishing an “Aryan Brotherhood” community in Norwegian prisons, as a parallel to the Aryan Brotherhoods known in the United States. 22.     Before the High Court, the applicant had further stated that he was a “party secretary in the Nordic State”; in a letter to, inter alia , politicians in September 2016 he had stated that he was also a “spokesperson for Norwegian national socialists, fascists and other ethno-nationalists”. A prison journal of 9 November 2016 read that, when the conversation had turned to 22 July 2011, the applicant had been clear that he did not feel remorse and did not in any way have problems defending what he had done on Utøya and in Oslo. This had, among other things, been revenge against the Labour Party for what it had subjected persons sharing his opinions ( meningsfeller ) to since 1945. He had maintained that he was Norway’s sole political prisoner and that he had tens of thousands of supporters in Norway and elsewhere. The prison staff had perceived that both his body language and his way of speaking emphasised that this was his firm belief. 23.     In the High Court’s view, it was reasonable to understand the recent nuances in the applicant’s political views primarily as reflections of considerations of appropriateness ( hensiktsmessighetsvurderinger ). This included his approaching national-socialistic theories and environments of the more “traditional type”; his political project and fundamental frames of reference had not changed particularly since 2011. 24.     The High Court considered that the particular features of the applicant’s personality had to be given major weight when assessing the risk of violence in the future. His generally calm and polite behaviour during approximately five and a half years’ imprisonment therefore did not give reason to consider the risk of planned violence in the long term as reduced. The risk assessments made by the correctional services authorities had been thorough and appropriate. No errors had been pointed out in their factual bases or in the psychiatric assessments. In the High Court’s view, there were no grounds to deviate from the conclusions that had been drawn in the assessments. 25.     In summary, the High Court pointed out that throughout the whole period, there had been a high risk of new, serious violence from the applicant. In addition, on the basis of the text that the applicant had written prior to his acts of terror and former statements he had made, there had particularly in 2011 and 2012 been reasons for taking into account the possibility of him having a network that could be apt to use violence in order to help him escape from prison. 26.     In the High Court’s view it was unlikely that the applicant no longer supported the use of violence as a political means.   There was still a high risk of violent acts in the long-term – not least if the applicant were to perceive reduced attention to himself and his political project. Although the risk in the short-term was perceived as having diminished, the security for prison staff, not least, indicated that extensive security measures should be in place. 27.     Furthermore, the risk concerned completely limitless violence if the applicant were to find this opportune. It was very difficult to reveal any increase in the risk – the acts of terrorism for which the applicant had been convicted had been secretly planned for a very a long time; the violence had not been provoked by any close prior events, emotional strain or visible changes to his mental health. 28.     Turning to the risk of violence against the applicant in prison, the High Court was of the view that that sort of risk still clearly existed. It mentioned, inter alia , that on one occasion in 2015, an inmate had managed to make his way to the door leading into the department where the applicant was held. The inmate had hammered on the door while shouting death threats. After this, physical measures had been adopted in order to avoid similar situations in future. Another inmate, who had been friends with a person present on Utøya on 22 July 2011, had expressed the wish to take revenge on the applicant. Although time had passed, the High Court concluded that there was still a relatively high risk of violence and serious threats against the applicant from other inmates. It added that it was not a simple task to clarify which persons might be capable of violence against the applicant, should they be given the opportunity. 29.     On the question of whether there was a risk that the applicant could inspire others to carry out violent acts, the High Court concluded that the applicant could inspire persons in right-wing extremist environments and stated that his wish to establish networks with persons who shared his opinions had to be viewed against that background. The High Court also noted that the applicant could be a source of inspiration even for persons outside any such networks. There had already been examples of serious violent acts and, inter alia , bomb threats, that had to be assumed to have been inspired by the applicant’s acts. ii.     The implemented security measures 30.     Turning to the measures adopted to counter the above risks related to the applicant, and the consequences these measures had for him, the High Court initially noted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention were, as a starting point, clearly more burdensome than an ordinary prison sentence would imply, both due to the possibility of his detention being prolonged and due to the strict security regime in the maximum security department. (α)     The confinement to a maximum security department 31.     The High Court went on to note that in general, serving at a maximum security department would normally imply exclusion from interaction with other inmates – in domestic procedural law often coined as “isolation”. Full isolation was considered as a very far-reaching measure to be used with great caution and also other limitations on contact with other inmates over time could be harmful. In more detail, the High Court set out that lack of personal contact represented a serious psychological strain and could also lead to somatic issues, such as problems with concentration and sleep, apathy and head and muscle pain. Research had shown that anxiety, depression and psychosis could develop. Isolation in prisons could, over time, lead to mental illnesses and increased risk of suicide. Reference was made to witnesses who had appeared in court, case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and recommendations from the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). The burdens of isolation were heavier if the inmate was concurrently subjected to limitations in social contact with persons outside prison through control of letters, visits and telephone calls, and if further restrictions on access to information and sense impressions were imposed, for example restrictions on access to newspapers and television or lack of a view outside through a window. Other limitations on the freedom to act and move would imply extra burdens, for example use of handcuffs or limitations to the possibilities for going outside. Repeated body searches would often be perceived as degrading and increase the total mental strain resulting from the security measures. 32.     The High Court observed that maximum security departments had been used only infrequently in Norway. Some ten inmates had served under this system since it was introduced in 2002. Apart from the applicant’s case, inmates had been held at maximum security departments for periods lasting from one month and up to one year and nine months. When the applicant had arrived at Ila in July 2011, maximum security departments had not been used since 2008 and never at Ila, wherefore it had been necessary to alter the building and draw up a local directive ( instruks ). 33.     The reasons for the applicant’s confinement to maximum security departments had essentially been the same throughout the whole period. In a decision of 21 June 2016 from the Directorate of the Norwegian Correctional Service ( Kriminalomsorgsdirektoratet ) it had been stated that the applicant represented a particular risk of escaping, of taking hostages and a danger of new, particularly serious crime. In the proportionality analysis it had been stated that it was not appropriate, for security reasons, that the applicant interact with other inmates, and that there were no other inmates serving at maximum security departments at the time. According to the relevant domestic rules, the restrictions on interaction following from serving at maximum security departments should be compensated by increased contact with staff and satisfactory work, teaching and other activity offers. The Directorate had come to the same conclusion in its decision of 19 December 2016. 34.     The applicant himself had, from the outset, argued that he had suffered harm due to isolation and both Ila and Telemark Prison had focussed on the risk of such harm; this matter had been discussed in notes, journals and reports. The applicant had had extensive contact with health personnel at Ila, in conversations which had often had characteristics of social contact. Since October 2011 such contact had taken place in a visiting room with a glass wall. In Telemark Prison the applicant had been offered the opportunity to speak with a psychiatrist as well as other health personnel twice weekly. 35.     In a report from Ila dated 10 December 2012, reference had been made to changes in the applicant’s behaviour that might be due to isolation. He had been perceived as more questioning and quarrelsome towards measures and routines after returning from Telemark Prison, where he had stayed for two months (see paragraph 5 above). After the transfer to Telemark in 2013 (ibid.), it had, in a report of 11 November 2013, been remarked that on some occasions he had appeared confused and forgetful with respect to which activities he had, for example, carried out the day before. Forgetfulness had also been noted in further reports of 5   September and 14 July 2015. In the latter, the question of harm due to isolation had been passed on to the health department. 36.     The prison doctor at Ila at the time had stated before the High Court that some symptoms had been registered during the applicant’s stay there, but that he had not suffered harm due to isolation. The applicant had seemed downcast for a period in 2012, but this had been perceived as a reaction to the conditions of his detention, for example that he had not immediately obtained approval to have a personal computer or that letters to persons who shared his opinions had been stopped. The doctor did not perceive the applicant as mentally vulnerable. 37.     The applicant had also reacted with despair and frustration when, in October 2015, he had been informed that he would have to share the maximum security department with other inmates and that, in connection with this, the area available to him would be reduced. Journals from the autumn of that year noted that the applicant, on some occasions, had stated that he had “isolation headache”. The prison doctor had concluded that he was suffering from tension headaches. With time, the applicant had chosen to break off contact with the psychiatrist and later also with the prison doctor. The High Court understood that the applicant had feared that contact with a psychiatrist could be perceived as weakness and used against him towards persons who shared his opinions. 38.     The prison doctor in Telemark Prison from September 2013 to January 2016 had never found signs of serious isolation harm. The matter had been considered both by a psychiatrist and the health team in the prison. The doctor had noted that the applicant had, for certain periods, suffered from headaches, but headaches were common for many people. 39.     The applicant had maintained during the appeal hearing that he had become “more right-wing radical” and referred, as an example, to his performing a “Nazi salute” at the opening of the hearing. He was of the view that this political radicalisation was a result of isolation, including the fact that his opinions were never corrected. 40.     The psychiatrist had concluded that there were no signs of particular vulnerability to isolation. She had perceived the applicant’s mental condition to be relatively stable throughout his whole stay in prison and referred to his not having developed typical symptoms such as apathy, change of circadian rhythm, reduced cognitive functioning or delusions. 41.     In the High Court’s view, the applicant’s health and manners had not changed much in spite of the very long stay under very strict security measures. He had kept a normal circadian rhythm and had worked a great deal on studies, on the conditions of his detention and his political project. He had not reported any noteworthy physical problems and there had not been any need for treatment for mental problems. He had not reported any specific serious mental problems. None of the psychiatrists or doctors who had examined him had concluded that he had suffered any harm due to isolation. Neither his situation prior to the criminal acts nor his behaviour in prison indicated, in the High Court’s opinion, that he had any particular mental vulnerability. The High Court noted that, prior to his imprisonment, he had also periodically lived with moderate interaction with others. 42.     Based on the above, the High Court concluded that there were no clear signs of harm due to isolation. In this assessment it also took into account the possibility that the applicant had under-reported mental problems in order to appear as a strong leader. 43.     The absence of signs of harm due to isolation was, however, not sufficient for there not to be a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The High Court, accordingly, went on to examine other aspects relating to the applicant’s having been confined to maximum security departments. 44.     In that respect, the High Court stated that the physical and material conditions of the applicant’s detention were, in its view, very good compared to those of other inmates in Norwegian prisons. The applicant had three cells, all with ventilation and each with a window – some with privacy film. He had a television, fridge, shower and toilet. There was no camera in his living cell. In his study cell there was a desk and a personal computer. He had access to an exercise bicycle if he so wished and the cells were otherwise furnished normally. He had pictures, books, films, games and letters on shelves and in boxes. He could play music and had a gaming console. His cell area was delimited by a security gate to the other areas of the department. The material conditions had been relatively similar at Ila. 45.     The applicant studied political social sciences and received outlines and sometimes recordings of lectures; he had taken several exams, with good results.   He could spend one hour outside in the prison yard every day. In Telemark Prison, since December 2015, he had also had the option to use a larger outdoor area every second week, in 2016 increased to approximately once a week; at Ila he had not had access to a similar area. He had access to newspapers every morning and in his time off he watched television and films and played video games. He also spent a lot of time on writing letters, on his political activities, or working with administrative appeals related to the conditions of his detention. In addition he worked out a couple of times a week and walked daily in the small prison yard. 46.     Through the testimony and records of conversations with the applicant made in medical papers and reports from prison officers, the High Court had gained a clear impression that the applicant’s studies in political social sciences were of considerable importance to him. There were reasons to assume that he perceived that the studies strengthened his political project. He therefore experienced his day-to-day life as clearly more meaningful than if he had had more ordinary work tasks. 47.     The High Court noted, moreover, that the applicant was authorised to have monitored visits. He had, however, only remained in contact to a very limited degree with persons he had known before his acts of terrorism. He had had some visits from his mother when serving at Ila – all but one of which had taken place with a glass wall. The applicant had not wanted contact with his father as long as he did not endorse his political project. The prison staff had refused visits from three persons whom the applicant had not known from before; apparently these had not been cleared due to suspicion that the purpose of the visits had been to establish contact with right-wing extremist environments. 48.     In Telemark Prison the applicant had regular contact with a volunteer visitor ( besøksvenn ). From April 2016 they had met for one and a half hours once a week, previously it had been every second week. The contents of their conversations were not recorded, but the High Court understood that they often discussed items of current interest in which they were both engaged. The visitor stated before the High Court that he had also brought up the applicant’s acts of terrorism with him. 49.     The applicant also had a weekly conversation with a priest, which had been the case throughout his detention. This gave the applicant a possibility for confidential contact, as the priest was under a duty of confidentiality. 50.     Furthermore, the applicant had, throughout his detention, been offered regular contact with health personnel. During the initial time in custody, he had been checked upon daily. After a while, this had been reduced to five, and ultimately to three times weekly. The reasons for the frequent supervision in the initial period had been, inter alia , fears of suicide attempts. The contact entailed speaking with psychiatrists, doctors or nurses. In addition to questions about the applicant’s health, other day ‑ to ‑ day matters and societal issues were often discussed, and the conversation had often lasted for around 30 minutes. With time, the applicant had also used these conversations to ask for help in achieving relief in the conditions of his detention, which in his view amounted to torture. 51.     Upon transfer to Telemark Prison, the arrangement for regular conversations with the health service had continued. In early 2014, the applicant had discontinued further conversations with the psychiatrist and psychologist because he thought this contact could weaken his political credibility. After some time he had had conversations with a nurse approximately twice weekly. In addition there had been possibilities for consultation when particularly needed. He had partly used the conversations to advance his wishes concerning relaxation of the conditions of his detention. In the summer of 2016 he had stopped regular conversations with the health services. Since then, the staff had continually considered whether there were signs of changes to his health. 52.     The applicant still had no interaction with other inmates. He had not at any time seen any other inmate; when he moved through common areas, other inmates there would be locked in their cells due to fears of unrest and comments of disapproval towards the applicant if he were seen. 53.     The applicant had on many occasions complained of the lack of opportunities for social contact. From October 2012 he had consistently appealed against the decisions that he be confined to a maximum security department.   According to the domestic legislation, inmates in maximum security departments should not interact with inmates in other departments. Whether multiple inmates under maximum security should be allowed to interact with each other had to be decided by the correctional services authorities (see also paragraph 6 above) and would depend largely on risk assessments. 54.     The correctional services authorities had referred to the fact that interaction with other inmates could give the applicant the opportunity to establish an extreme right-wing network in the prison, or give him the opportunity to obtain assistance in communication with such networks outside the prison. It was evident from the risk assessment report of 5   December 2016 that the applicant would like to serve his sentence in a mixed-inmate department. He had in this context presumed that this would be a department with only imprisoned fascists, so that they could form a group. He had also stated that, if he were placed in a mixed-inmate department, he would build himself up to become very strong and acquire weapons. The High Court noted that the applicant had made considerable efforts to make contact with likeminded people. 55.     Other inmates had been placed in the maximum security department at Telemark Prison only for two short periods during the applicant’s sentence. On these two occasions, the conditions had not been suitable for interaction with him: for example, one of the inmates had stated that it would be unfortunate for his criminal case if he were to interact with the applicant. The High Court also pointed out that, while the prison could place an inmate in a certain department without consent, inmates could not be forced to participate in social activities with others. 56.     The High Court went on to state that the opportunity to interact with other inmates was of great significance, not least for those serving long sentences. Interaction provided social impulses in day-to-day life and could reduce the risk of developing mental ailments. Inmates had few others they could confide in without confidential information concerning personal matters being reported to prison management.   This applied particularly to those serving sentences in maximum security departments. Interaction with other inmates furthermore provided the opportunity to choose for oneself who to talk to. 57.     The high risk of violence from the applicant, should he become frustrated in the future, combined with the risk of violence against him from other inmates, made it difficult to establish a secure arrangement for interaction. The problems were amplified by his expressed desire to enlist inmates to support his political project, and to establish contact with extreme right-wing individuals outside prison. On the basis of the risk of violence, contact with other inmates would be difficult to carry out without the presence of personnel. 58.     The High Court was of the view that the correctional services authorities should, at an earlier date, have conducted more extensive assessments of the opportunity to carry out interaction with one or more inmates who were not confined to the maximum security department. No concrete plans for interaction had been presented to the court, for example whether the applicant and another inmate could be on either side of the security gate or carry out a joint sports activity. 59.     The applicant had very extensive contact with prison personnel and the objective of this was partly to ensure that he had social interaction. Multiple personnel were always present when the applicant was having contact. The officers did not have a duty of confidentiality towards prison management as to what inmates confided in them. Material information would be logged. Contact with personnel normally took place through the security gate in connection with routine inspections. In the circumstances, the contact with prison personnel nevertheless helped cover the applicant’s social needs. The scope and content of conversation with personnel was therefore significant in the assessment of whether the lack of interaction with other inmates entailed a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 60.     During the first phase at Ila until the judgment in the criminal case had been rendered, there had been frequent inspections. In the initial period, there had been two inspections each hour. The correctional officers had then normally only had brief conversations with the applicant, except for the department manager, who had sometimes had multiple conversations with him each day. The manager had then also discussed current affairs such as news items with the applicant; their total conversation time could vary between 15 and 50 minutes each day. During this period, the applicant had also been subject to a number of police interrogations and had had extensive contact with his defence counsel. There had also been conversations with forensic psychiatrists, and the applicant had for a period been under observation in a psychiatric hospital. 61.     In the second phase, correctional officers had also been allowed to discuss, for example, current affairs with the applicant. The total daily conversation time with personnel had then increased by an estimated 30 to 40 minutes. This relatively extensive contact with the applicant had been intended to compensate for the fact that he was prohibited from interacting with other inmates. 62.     In the third phase, which had started when the applicant was transferred to Telemark Prison in September 2013, the routines had been generally equivalent to those at Ila. The correctional officers could, however, initially not discuss political issues or issues concerning his case with the applicant. The manager of the applicant’s department at the time had also had conversations with the applicant lasting 15-20 minutes on a number of occasions. 63.     As of the winter of 2014, the applicant had more extensive contact with personnel. Common subjects of conversation were, for example, films, television series and everyday topics. A social consultant had also assisted him in preparing a rehabilitation plan, and not least in planning and facilitating his studies. As of the summer of 2014, there had been no restrictions as regarded topics that could be discussed and the new department manager had generally had daily conversations with the applicant for 15-20 minutes. The applicant had been interested in hearing the personnel’s opinions on, for example, topics in the news. 64.     Over the last two years before the High Court’s judgment, inspections had lasted up to one hour. Sometimes personnel would play backgammon or other games with the applicant at the security gate. The scope of contact with personnel had been increased as a consequence of some compensatory measures being discontinued during two periods in the autumn of 2015, when another inmate had been in the department. 65.     An arrangement had started in April 2014 involving one hour of interaction with personnel each week as a purely social measure. In January 2016, this organised interaction had been expanded to twice each week. Once a week they would, for example, cook in the common area outside the security gate and once a week they would have other social activities. 66.     An observation programme ( observasjonsprogram ) had been implemented since 1 January 2016 as part of the preventive detention sentence. The applicant had, in this connection, been confronted with his acts of terrorism. Training in independent living skills had also started in 2015, which meant that the applicant was responsible for washing his cell area and his clothes. 67.