OSLO: Anders Behring Breivik, the individual responsible for the tragic killing of 77 people, predominantly teenagers, in the 2011 shootings and bombing attack in Norway, is once again making headlines.
At the age of 44, Breivik is serving the longest sentence in Norway’s legal system, a 21-year term that could potentially be extended if he continues to be deemed a threat to society. However, his recent actions suggest he is not ready to fade into obscurity.
Breivik’s lawyer, Oeystein Storrvik, has confirmed that his client is pursuing legal action against the state, citing alleged violations of his human rights. The basis of this claim revolves around Breivik’s assertion that he has endured “extreme” isolation during his incarceration. Storrvik recently disclosed to the Reuters news agency that Breivik has been cut off from nearly all human interaction for the past 11 years, with the exception of interactions with his guards.
One might remember that in 2017, Breivik had previously launched a human rights case, arguing that his near-isolation within a confined three-room cell was tantamount to inhumane treatment. However, that plea was ultimately overturned by an appeals court, which ruled that his conditions did not qualify as a breach of his human rights.
In a bid to improve his circumstances, Breivik was relocated to a new prison last year. Hopes were high that this change would bring about better living conditions and opportunities for interpersonal engagement. Regrettably, it seems those expectations have not been met, as Breivik’s recent legal action suggests.
Despite the evident complexities surrounding his case, it’s crucial to remember the magnitude of the crimes for which Breivik has been convicted. His actions in July 2011 shook Norway to its core, leaving families shattered and communities scarred. The attack, which targeted both government buildings and a youth camp, was the country’s worst peacetime atrocity.
In addition to his current legal pursuit, Breivik has also reportedly submitted another application for parole. However, his request was turned down last year by a Norwegian court, which upheld that he still poses a risk of perpetrating violence.
Storrvik is optimistic that the lawsuit against the state will be brought before the Oslo district court next year. As legal proceedings unfold, the broader debate over the treatment of prisoners, particularly those who have committed heinous crimes, is sure to resurface. The delicate balance between upholding human rights and ensuring public safety remains at the heart of this complex issue.
