Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

National and regional instruments in securing the rule of law and human rights in the Nordic prisons

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. The development of Nordic prison laws and enforcement principles is discussed in more detail Lappi-Seppälä [1] (forthcoming).

  2. See Engbo [2] p.379. Greve and Snare ([3] p. 311) define also the Danish prison reform of 2001 as first and foremost a “Rule of Law reform”, with an intention of specific regulation of prisoners’ rights. The same ideology is behind changes that have given the courts a more active role in the corrections area. It may also be noted that prior to the 2000-reform, Danish enforcement legislation was based on administrative regulation alone. The new Corrections Act covers both custodial and community sanctions, as well as the enforcement of fines.

  3. See Lov om gjennomføring av. straff mv. LOV-2001-05-18-21, 4:46. However, the value of this provision as an expression of the principle of minimization is diminished by the fact that the provisions deals only with remand prisoners, while the corresponding provisions in Finland and Sweden apply to all prisoners.

  4. The Nordic countries follow a dualistic model, under which the incorporation of international treaties takes place in a form of a separate legislative act.

  5. This description is greatly simplified and is only general by nature. In each country there exists rich and detailed literature about the relationship between European and national law, which I do not have space to comment on here. For Finland, see especially Pellonpää et al. [5] and Viljanen [6].

  6. For a detailed discussion of the evolvement of European prison law and policy, see van Zyl Smit & Snacken [7], Chapter 1.

  7. The role of national monitoring instruments and the Ombudsman are discussed in more detail in Lappi-Seppälä & Koskenniemi (forthcoming 2017)

  8. Thus, in Finland a specific Internal Audit Unit works under the leadership of the Director General of the prison administration with the powers to examine all activities and operation of all units. Norway established in 1955 a specific system of supervision-councils with a wide mandate to oversee “all fields of treatment in prisons”. However, their activities have been criticized as ineffective and their role as “completely marginal” ([8] p.404 and 449). See also the Ombudsman’s critical evaluation of the work of these councils (https://www.sivilOmbudsmannen.no/uttalelser/undersokelse-av-tilsynsradsordningen-i-kriminalomsorgen-article2653-114.html).

  9. The International Ombudsman Institute (IOI), established in 1978, reports on its webpage of cooperation with more than 170 independent Ombudsman institutions from more than 90 countries worldwide (see http://www.theioi.org/ ).

  10. In fact, the first four formal recommendations dealt with prisons, the first one issued in 1811 (see [9] p.212 with references).

  11. Personal communication from Assistant Ombudsman Jussi Pajuoja 3.3.2017.

  12. Lag (1986:765) med instruktion för Riksdagens ombudsmän (The Act with Instructions for the Parliamentary Ombudsmen), sections 6–7.

  13. Riksdagens ombudsmän - JO: Annual report 2014/15 Summary in English, Danagård LiTHO AB [20], p. 61.

  14. Counted from https://www.jo.se/sv.

  15. Riksdagens ombudsmän - JO: Annual report 2014/15 Summary in English, Danagård LiTHO AB [20], pp. 37–42.

  16. Bekendtgørelse af lov om Folketingets Ombudsmand (The Ombudsman Act), Chapter 7, sections 21–24. ( https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/r0710.aspx?id=143235 )

  17. The task is carried out in collaboration with the Danish Institute for Human Rights and the Danish Institute Against Torture. See the Danish OPCAT-reports (latest in English from 2012) http://en.Ombudsmanden.dk/publikationer/summary/opcat_annual_report_2012/

  18. See https://en.Ombudsmanden.dk/publikationer/thematic_reports/placement_in_security_cells/

  19. This figures used are the sum of cases relating to the performance of prisons compiled by the author from the statistics in: The Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman: Annual Report 2015, The Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman, Copenhagen [22], p. 113.

  20. Lov om Stortingets Ombudsmann for forvaltningen LOV 162-06-22-8 (Act Relating to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration), sections 3a & 10. (https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1962-06-22-8?q=Ombudsman)

  21. The report concludes: “After more than six months of Norwegian inmates being detained in prison in the Netherlands, it is still unclear how Norway honors its commitments under the UN Convention against torture and how the NPMs and SPT are to exercise their mandates. The Ombudsman will continue to follow developments in the time ahead.” https://www.sivilOmbudsmannen.no/getfile.php/Filer/%C3%85rsmelding/SIVOM_FOREBYGGENH_%C3%85RSMELDING_ENG_2015_WEB.pdf

  22. Laki eduskunnan oikeusasiamiehestä (197/2002) (Parliamentary Ombudsman Act).

  23. The Annual Report of the Ombudsman: 2015, Juvenes Print – Suomen yliopistopaino Oy, Tampere, 2016, pp. 183–193. For an English summary (176 pages) for the 2015 report can be found in http://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/dman/Document.phx?documentId=dg29116163758950&cmd=download

  24. In Finland, the standard practice within the prison administration is that Ombudsman’s reports and comments are communicated to those prisons that have been the subject of the comment. Reports are examined also in the central prison administration and they are presented to specific development groups that consist both of prison authorities and representatives from outside interest groups (including research institutes).

  25. A list of countries visisted and prisons visited per country each year is presented in [14]).

  26. The text concentrates on critical comments and recommendations only. The CPT reports included also several positive assessments related to overall levels of prison conditions and well-functioning co-operation, which are left aside in this report.

  27. In Sweden these restrictions are imposed by the court at the request of the public prosecutor. The system is the same in Denmark and Norway, but not in Finland. Whether these differences in the procedural rules explain differences in the practice, is an issue that would require a separate analysis.

  28. Nowadays the remand prisoners’ right to challenge the District Court’s imposition of restrictions is enshrined in the Remand Imprisonment Act and the correct procedure to be followed can be found in the Judicial Procedure Act.

  29. The CPT has issued the following seven public statements to date: Prison overcrowding and ill-treatment by police and prison staff (Bulgaria 2015); The treatment of irregular migrants in detention centres where conditions may have amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment (Greece 2011); Secret detention facilities and severe and systematic physical ill-treatment of prisoners in the Chechen Republic (Russia 2001, 2003, 2007); and The lack of legal safeguards against persistent physical and psychological torture by the Anti-Terror Departments of some branches of the police (Turkey 1992, 1996). This would have indeed been harsh company for the treatment of remand prisoners in Finnish police-station cells.

  30. The decision of the European Commission on Human Rights in Rasch v. Denmark, No. 10263/83, 11 March 1985, pp. 153–154, where a prisoner had been held in solitary confinement for 17 months based on the risk of his escape. Although the solitary confinement was deemed to be undesirable, it was not deemed a breach of Article 3 ECHR. See the summary of cases in Ot. prp. nr 5/2001 p. As regards the Norwegian case, see: Treholt v. Norway, No. 14610/89, 9 July 1991, in which the European Commission of Human Rights deemed the application inadmissible, but commented on the use of solitary confinement.

  31. As mentioned above, prisoner access to toilets at night is also a problem in other Nordic countries, notably Sweden and Norway. However, no mention of slopping out is made in the CPT reports for these countries.

  32. As an interesting side note, initial medical screenings for prisoners can be delayed for weeks after admission to prison in the Nordic countries, and in Norway the CPT found cases where no medical examinations had been carried out at all, even though overcrowding or the lack of medical staff were only mentioned as minor issues in the reports.

  33. For a tentative small-scale comparison between the Nordic countries and Germany and the Netherlands, see [14]).

  34. And in turn, the European prison rules from 1987 and 2006 also reflect in many respect the principles and aims that were formulated in the Nordic prison law and theory from the mid-1940s onwards, especially in the 1970s.

  35. As a result, the requirements of the legal principle are now met, but the question of whether or not the use of these overalls in the first place is in line with human and sensible enforcement principles is another matter.

  36. See also the discussions in Lappi-Seppälä & Koskenniemi 2017 (forthcoming).

References

Literature

  1. Lappi-Seppälä, T. (2017). Principles of Nordic prison reform 1800-2000, to appear in Festskrift för Dan Frände, Tidskrift Utgiven av Juridiska Förening I Finland.*

  2. Engbo, H. J. (2005). Straffulbyrdelseret. Copenhagen: Juris- og Okonomiforbundets Forlag.

  3. Greve, V., & Snare, A. (2009). Ideologies and realities in prison law: some trends. In P. Wahlgren (Ed.), Scandinavian studies in law (Vol. 54). Stockholm: Stockholm University of Law Faculty.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nordskov-udvalget. (2000). Placering af indsatte, Indstilling agfgivet af Differentieringsudvalget. Copenhagen: Direktroratet for Kriminalforsorgen. http://krim.dk/undersider/retskilder/institutions-placering-Nordskovudvalget[1].pdf. Accessed 27 Apr 2017.

  5. Pellonpää, M., et al. (2012). Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimus. Talentum: Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Viljanen, J. (2007). The European convention of human rights and the transformation of the Finnish fundamental rights system: The model of interpretative harmonisation and interaction. In Scandinavian studies of law, volume 52. Constitutional Law: Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  7. van Zyl Smit, D., & Snacken, S. (2009). Principles of European prison law and policy: penology and human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Eskeland, S. (1989). Fangerett: En Studie av rettsikkerhet ved fullbyrdelse av fengselstraff. Oslo: Tano.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Anderson, S. (1978). Ombudsmen and Prisons in Scandinavia. Nordisk Tidskrift for Kriminalvidenskab, 66, 211–246.

  10. Keinänen, A., & Määttä, K. (2007). Näkökulmia oikeusasiamiesinstituution vaikuttavuuteen. Yliopistopaino: Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mäkipää, L. (2014). Vankien oikeusturvan toteutuminen eduskunnan oikeusasiamiehen ratkaisujen valossa, Edliex, 2014/5. Helsinki: Edita Publishing Oy.

  12. Pajuoja, J. (2016). Kansainväliset tarkastuselimet haastavat ylimmän laillisuusvalvonnan. Edilex, 2016. www.edilex.fi/artikkelit/16167. Accessed 24 Mar 2017.

  13. Mäkipää, L. (2015). Vangit jälkikäteisten oikeusturvakeinojen käyttäjinä, Lakimies, 1/2015. Helsinki, 54–80.

  14. Koskenniemi, L., & Lappi-Seppälä, T. (2017). Assessing the role of European monitoring instruments and their impact on prison conditions in the Nordic countries, to appear in Monitoring Penal Policies in Europe. Routledge, London.*

  15. Oikeusministeriö. (2016a). Tutkintavankeuden vaihtoehdot ja järjestäminen. Mietintöjä ja lausuntoja, 5/2016, Helsinki.

  16. Coyle, A. (2002). Human rights approach to prison management, Handbook for Prison Staff. International Centre for Prison Studies, London.

  17. Oikeusministeriö. (2016b). Tutkintavankeuden vaihtoehdot ja järjestäminen: lausuntoyhteenveto. Mietintöjä ja lausuntoja, 34/2016, Helsinki.

  18. Daems, T. (2017). Slaves and statues: Torture prevention in contemporary Europe. British Journal of Criminology, 57(3), 627–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Ombudsman reports

  1. Eduskunnan oikeusasiamies. (2015). The Annual Report of the Ombudsman (Finland), Tampere. http://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/dman/Document.phx?documentId=dg29116163758950&cmd=download. Accessed 27 Apr 2017.

  2. Riksdagens ombudsmän – JO. (2016). Annual report 2014/15 (Sweden) summary in English. Ödeshög: Danagård LiTHO AB.

    Google Scholar 

  3. SivilOmbudsmannen. (2016). Annual report 2015 (Norway). Oslo: RKGrafisk. https://www.sivilOmbudsmannen.no/getfile.php/Filer/%C3%85rsmelding/SIVOM_%C3%85RSMELDING_2015_WEB.pdf Accessed 27 Apr 2017.

  4. The Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman. (2016). Annual Report 2015 (Denmark). Copenhagen: The Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman.

    Google Scholar 

Legal documents

  1. Bekendtgørelse af lov om Folketingets Ombudsmand (LBK nr 349 af 22/03/2013) (The Ombudsman Act). https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/r0710.aspx?id=143235. Accessed 27 Apr 2017.

  2. Bekendtgørelse af lov om fuldbyrdelse af straf m.v. (LBK nr 1242 af 11/11/2015). (Executive Order of the Act on the Enforcement of Penalties). https://www.retsinformation.dk/pdfPrint.aspx?id=170653. Accessed 24 Mar 2017.

  3. Council of Europe: Recommendation Rec (2006) 2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Prison Rules. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&Ref=Rec(2006)2&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75&direct=true. Accessed 20 Dec 2016.

  4. Gov Prop 262/2004, Hallituksen esitys vankeutta ja ehdonalaista vapauttamista koskevaksi lainsäädännöksi. (Gov Prop 262/2004, regarding imprisonment and conditional release).

  5. Gov Prop 263/2004, Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle vankeusrangaistuksen täytäntöönpanoa ja tutkintavankeuden toimeenpanoa koskevaksi lainsäädännöksi. (Gov Prop 263/2004, regarding the execution of sentences and remand imprisonment).

  6. Gov Prop 45/2014, Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle vankeutta ja tutkintavankeutta koskevan lainsäädännön muuttamiseksi. (Gov Prop 45/2014 to change the Imprisonment Act and Remand Imprisonment Act).

  7. Lag (1986:765) med instruktion för Riksdagens ombudsmän (The Act with Instructions for the Parliamentary Ombudsmen).

  8. Laki eduskunnan oikeusasiamiehestä (197/2002) (Parliamentary Ombudsman Act). http://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/Resource.phx/eoa/english/lawlinks/act-ombudsman.htx. Accessed 27 Apr 2017.

  9. Lov om Stortingets Ombudsmann for forvaltningen LOV 162-06-22-8 (Act Relating to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration), sections 3a & 10. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1962-06-22-8?q=Ombudsman. Accessed 27 Apr 2017.

  10. Lov om gjennomføring av straff mv. LOV-2001-05-18-21. (The Execution of Sentences Act). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2001-05-18-21?q=LOV-2001-05-18-21. Accessed 6 Nov 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Tapio Lappi-Seppälä & Lauri Koskenniemi

Authors
  1. Tapio Lappi-Seppälä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lauri Koskenniemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tapio Lappi-Seppälä or Lauri Koskenniemi.

Additional information

CPT reports

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: 24th General Report of the CPT, Council of Europe, 2015.

Country Reports by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

Report to the Danish Government 1990, 1996, 2002, 2008, 2012, 2014.

Report to the Finnish Government 1992, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2014.

Report to the Icelandic Government, 1993, 1998, 2004, 2012.

Report to the Norwegian Government 1993, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2011.

Report to the Swedish Government 1991, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2009, 2015.

Government Responses to the CPT’s country reports:

Response of the Finnish Government 2014, Strasbourg, 2015.

Response of the Finnish Government to paragraph 26 of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on its visit to Finland 2014, Strasbourg, 2015.

Response of the Norwegian Government 2011, Strasbourg, 2012.

Response of the Swedish Government 2015, Strasbourg, 2016.

Case law. European Court of Human Rights.

Lindström and Mässeli v. Finland, 24,630/10, Strasbourg, 2014.

Rohde v. Denmark, 69332/01, 21/10/2005, Strasbourg, 2005

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lappi-Seppälä, T., Koskenniemi, L. National and regional instruments in securing the rule of law and human rights in the Nordic prisons. Crime Law Soc Change 70, 135–159 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9723-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9723-1

Search

Navigation