i The summary is made by ChatGPT and approved by Dagbladet. Close
To make a long story short
Sea view
On Thursday, the verdict came from the Oslo district court. The state is acquitted in the lawsuit by the mass murderer about the conditions of his sentence.
“Breivik has good physical prison conditions and, relatively speaking, great freedom in everyday life. He can largely arrange his days as he wishes, within the framework provided by the prison. He studies and works on his political projects,” the judgment states.
Breivik’s lawyer expresses disappointment on behalf of his client on Thursday.
– We are disappointed with the result. It has been pushed beyond the limits of what is legally correct, says Øystein Storrvik to Dagbladet.
Opposite Aftenposten the lawyer confirms that they will appeal the verdict.
– Yes, we will try to get the case into the Court of Appeal, says Storrvik to the newspaper.
Changed assessment
– Not enough contact
Breivik sued the state at the Ministry of Justice and Emergency Preparedness for violations of human rights.
This is the second time the terrorist has gone to court and complained about the prison conditions.
WILL APPEAL: Breivik’s lawyer Øystein Storrvik believes the client’s contact with the police officers is not enough. Photo: Bjørn Langsem / Dagbladet Show more
– The court has emphasized that the contact my client has with the police officers is sufficient. That’s where we really disagree. The officers are not allowed to have a private relationship, and therefore we do not believe that there is sufficient contact with other people, says lawyer Storrvik to Dagbladet.
The state was sued for violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, respectively on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to privacy.
The Oslo district court determines that the conditions of sentencing do not violate human rights on any of these points.
– Breivik is dangerous
In the 66-page judgment, the court goes through the security regime in the prison in detail, Breivik’s opportunities for socializing and the shielding from other inmates.
“There is no indication that the purpose of any of the security measures has been to punish or humiliate Breivik, or that the purpose is characterized by any revenge motive. On the contrary, the security regime, including isolation, is considered necessary because Breivik is dangerous both in terms of violence against other inmates, employees or visitors to the prison.” writes the Oslo District Court.
“Furthermore, the purpose is to prevent network building and to prevent Breivik from inspiring others to use serious violence. The screening against other inmates is also justified by the danger of an attack against him himself,” the judgment further states.
– He broke down
– The ball is in Breivik’s court
The government attorney agrees with the district court that Breivik should still be described as dangerous.
– Yes, we fully agree with that, says Kristoffer Nerland at the Government Attorney to Dagbladet on Thursday. He was one of two lawyers who represented the state during the trial.
He believes the verdict is an important acknowledgment that good risk assessments have been made by Breivik.
OPPOSING PARTIES: Breivik, with his lawyer Øystein Storrvik and paralegal Marte Lindholm, greeted Andreas Hjetland (front) and Kristoffer Nerland from the Government Attorney during the trial in January. Photo: Lars Eivind Bones / Dagbladet Show more
– The district court gives us recognition that Breivik has been given significant compensatory measures.
He believes that it will be up to the terrorist himself to change if the terms of his sentence are to be eased.
– The risk assessments are carried out by the leading specialists in Norway. For significant changes to be made in the sentencing regime, the ball is in Breivik’s court. He is the one who must work actively with the ideas that formed the basis of the actions on 22 July. It is only when there is a real initiative that it is appropriate to consider easing the sentence, says Nerland.
Nobody cries with Breivik
– Receives special treatment
22 July relative Freddy Lie (63) believes that Breivik receives special treatment in front of other prisoners. He has little sympathy for that.
– The decision was as expected. Because there are no other prisoners in Norway who are doing as well as him in prison, Lie told Dagbladet after the decision in the district court became known.
IN COURT: Dagbladet met Freddy Lie (63) in court in January. He was one of the relatives after 22 July who followed the trial from the courtroom, together with the young stepdaughter. Photo: Bjørn Langsem / Dagbladet Show more
On 22 July 2011, Lie’s two daughters, Elisabeth and Cathrine, aged 16 and 17 respectively, were on Utøya. Both were shot by the terrorist – Elisabeth was killed, Cathrine survived with major injuries.
Lie has faith that the Court of Appeal will reject Breivik’s appeal, and that they will send the case back.
– He has the right to be heard. That’s the way our legal system is. I think that the correctional services are doing what they can, and that he gets special treatment compared to other prisoners, he says.
– Should have sent him to Guantánamo
Has budgies
The now 44-year-old mass murderer is serving 21 years in custody with a 10-year minimum term for the terrorist acts in Oslo and on Utøya on 22 July 2011.
The case against the state took place in Ringerike prison in Buskerud, where Breivik is serving time under a so-called particularly high security level.
The state emphasized that the 44-year-old got rid of his visiting friend of nine years. The state also emphasized that Breivik has “a number of leisure activities” such as cooking, gambling, library access, airing and training.
In addition, he is allowed to study, and is allowed to have three budgies in the hallway.
Anders Behring Breivik’s defender Øystein Storrvik pointed out in his procedure that the 22 July terrorist should be allowed to have contact with other inmates in other prisons. Video: Dagbladet TV. view more
In the previous court round, in 2016 and 2017, he was upheld by the District Court on the point about Article 3, but the state won on all points in the Court of Appeal. The case was subsequently rejected by the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.