NorwayBreivik is still subjected to “unlimited violence”.
Mass murderer Anders Breivik is currently fighting in court for prison relief. But according to one state official, Breivik is just as dangerous as he was 12 years ago.
More than twelve years after his crime, right-wing extremist attacker Anders Breivik has not lost his fervent desire to use violence, according to the Norwegian government. In a court case over the prison conditions of the now 44-year-old, Norwegian government representative Andreas Hedland insisted that Breivik “presents the same danger today as he did on July 21, 2011 – two days before.” Attacks he had meticulously prepared for years.”
“His ideology remains the same, his tendency towards unrestrained violence is obvious and his personality reinforces all these factors,” Hedgeland stressed, citing reports from psychiatrists and prison guards.
A case of human rights violations
On July 22, 2011, Breivik killed eight people in Oslo's government district and then shot another 69 on the island of Utoya, most of them participants in a summer camp run by the Labor Party's youth organization. In 2012, Breivik was sentenced to 21 years in prison, followed by pretrial detention. In 2022, an application for early release from prison was rejected.
The convicted killer sued the Norwegian government for the past eleven years in isolation from other prisoners. According to his argument, the isolation violates Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits “inhuman” and “degrading” treatment.
The process takes place in the gym
The trial, scheduled for five days, began Monday and, for security reasons, is being held in a gymnasium at Ringerich prison, where Breivik is serving his lengthy sentence.
Breivik's lawyer, Oystein Storrvik, said his client had become “suicidal” and depressed because of prison. The Norwegian government argues that the 44-year-old's isolation is proportionate and justified due to the danger he poses.
Breivik won a similar case in an Oslo court in 2016. However, higher courts overturned the verdict and the European Court of Human Rights dismissed his case as “inadmissible”.
“Wannabe pop culture fanatic. Zombie advocate. Entrepreneur. Internet evangelist. Alcohol fanatic. Typical travel buff.”