The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg has ruled against Norwegian authorities, finding that there were violations of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to prevent a prisoner’s suicide. The decision points to significant shortcomings at Oslo Prison, IHT Sanderud, and the District Court, indicating that adequate measures were not taken to protect a prisoner identified as “X,” who was known to have psychiatric disorders.
The case originated when Haugen, the prisoner’s father, submitted an application to the ECHR on December 1, 2021. He argued that the authorities failed under multiple articles of the convention, including Article 2, the right to life, Article 3, the prohibition of torture, and Article 13, the right to an effective remedy. The court found that Oslo Prison was aware of X’s heightened suicide risk but failed to provide appropriate healthcare involvement or assessments necessary to mitigate this risk.
In 2018, X was sentenced for attempted murder and was later subjected to compulsory mental health treatment under Norway’s Mental Healthcare Act. His condition had improved enough for him to be moved to a residential facility. However, in 2020, while intoxicated, he killed another patient, leading to his detention and eventual tragic end. According to reports, by February 25, 2020, X was transferred without suicide risk supervision before committing suicide on March 1, 2020.
Despite subsequent investigations and complaints lodged by Haugen, findings by local authorities indicated that proper care was allegedly provided following February 14, 2020, and no charges were filed against Oslo Prison officials. However, the ECHR’s ruling brings to light lapses in oversight and mandates €30,000 for non-pecuniary damages and €6,530 for costs and expenses to Haugen, underscoring a need for accountability and the establishment of mechanisms to address state liabilities in such circumstances.
This represents a notable case as it is the first instance Norway has been found in violation of Article 2. For further details, refer to JURIST’s full report.