STATEMENT
Opening statement. ICPPED dialogue with Norway delivered by Ambassador Mr. Tormod C. ENDRESEN,
Permanent Representative of Norway.
25 September 2024
Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the Committee,
It is a great honour to appear before you to present Norway’s initial report submitted under Article 29(1) of the Convention, and to convey our reply to the list of issues in relation to that initial report.
By way of introduction - I am Norway’s Permanent Representative in Geneva and glad to head up a strong team of colleagues from relevant ministries. Our delegation consists of representatives from the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, the Ministry of Children and Families, the Directorate for Correctional Services and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Several other ministries have also been involved in drafting the initial report and our reply to the Committee’s list of issues in what has been a true whole of government effort.
Let me introduce to you:
Mr Jan Austad, Policy Director
Ms Linda Drazdiak, Policy Director
Ms Benedikte Strøm, Legal Adviser
Ms Åshild Tveit Arnstorp, Senior Policy Adviser
Ms Julie Larsen, Adviser
Mr Simen Grinden, Adviser
all from the Ministry of Justice and Public Security
Ms Hilde Bautz Holter Geving, Senior Policy Adviser from the Ministry of Children and Families
Mr Tom Alexander Enger, Head of Section, Directorate of Correctional Service
Let me also recognise the contributions made by the Norwegian National Human Rights Institution, the Parliamentary Ombud’s National Preventive Mechanism and the broader Norwegian civil society.
Mr. Chair,
Human rights are at the core of our society and safeguarded by our Constitution. The Norwegian Government attaches great importance to the fulfilment of its international human rights obligations. We are also engaged in promotion of human rights globally, believing that this is an important contribution to stability and prosperity. The UN treaty bodies play a crucial role in improving states’ implementation of their international human rights obligations. I therefore take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the Committee and its members for your work, through which you contribute to the prevention and eradication of – as well as redress for – enforced disappearances.
Mr. Chair,
At the outset I would like to take the time to recall some features of the legal system in Norway, as I believe this will provide some useful context.
Whilst Norway is a civil law country in which statutory provisions are significant sources of law, the process of interpretation is also heavily reliant on preparatory documents and Supreme Court jurisprudence, which is due to our legislative tradition of drafting statutes in fairly general language.
It should also be noted that Norway is a dualist country, meaning that international obligations must be implemented in Norwegian law in order to be directly applicable. The process of implementation can take different forms. Some conventions are incorporated into Norwegian law through specific provisions. Most conventions, however, are implemented by way of active or passive transformation. The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances is partly implemented in our legal system by way of passive transformation, which entails that the Parliament considered existing Norwegian law to be in accordance with the Convention.
An example in this regard would be the obligation under Article 24(4) to, inter alia, ensure a right to compensation for victims of enforced disappearances, which is available pursuant to the general rules on compensation under Norwegian law.
As stated in both our report and the reply to the list of issues, the obligation to criminalise acts as defined in Article 2 has been implemented by active transformation: In 2019, the Parliament enacted two provisions in the Penal Code on enforced disappearance.
The principle of presumption is another mechanism to ensure compliance with international obligations. According to the principle, Norwegian law is interpreted in accordance with Norway’s international obligations to the extent possible. In addition, all state authorities shall use their discretionary power in accordance with Norway’s obligations under international law.
With respect to the protection of human rights more broadly, the Norwegian Constitution expressly recognises democracy, the rule of law and human rights as societal cornerstones. Following a constitutional reform in 2014, a number of different human rights are enshrined in the Constitution, some of which are influenced by and interpreted in light of the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Constitution also requires state authorities to respect and ensure human rights as they are expressed in both the Constitution and in human rights treaties to which Norway is a State Party.
Some international human rights treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are incorporated into Norwegian law through the Human Rights Act and take precedent in the event of a conflict between provisions of the respective Conventions and other national provisions.
In sum, the protection from enforced disappearance is guaranteed by various parts of the legal system in Norway, some of which are general in nature, whilst others – such as the provisions in the Penal Code that implement Article 4 of the Convention – are more specific to the issue of enforced disappearance. In our view, these safeguards must be considered together to determine the level of protection from enforced disappearances that is afforded under Norwegian law.
Mr. Chair,
Let me proceed by emphasising that no acts of enforced disappearance as defined in Article 2 of the Convention have been recorded or reported in Norway. This has also been confirmed through our consultations with the Norwegian Human Rights Institution, the Parliamentary Ombud’s National Preventive Mechanism and Civil Society. Both the high level of protection of human rights, and other strong legal safeguards in place, have to date thankfully prevented enforced disappearances from occurring in Norway.
Any unlawful deprivation of liberty will be investigated by the police as a criminal offence, in line with the domestic rules on criminal procedure, and subsequently be brought before domestic courts. This would also be the case in the hypothetical situation that an act of enforced disappearance should occur in Norway. If a member of the police or public prosecutor were to commit such an act, the investigation and prosecution of the case would be carried out by a separate and independent Bureau, whilst the officer in question would be suspended from their work duties.
Mr. Chair,
As our reply to the list of issues emphasised, our legal system ensures the right to reparation and redress. If a case of enforced disappearance should occur, there are several ways for victims to receive compensation. The victim can take civil action, and file a claim for compensation and reparation against the state, in accordance with the general principles of tort law. Further, in a criminal proceeding against the perpetrator, victims may be entitled to state compensation. In addition, the Norwegian Parliament’s Fair Compensation Scheme, is a secondary compensation scheme, where individuals can, in cases no longer prosecutable due to limitation statutes, apply for discretionary compensation from the state.
I would also like to use this opportunity to highlight that the Norwegian Government continuously works to develop and strengthen the policies on ensuring reparation and redress for the victims of past abuses. Past human rights violations are neither ignored nor denied by the Norwegian Government. Rather, an integral part to the common approach in Norway is the appointment of public committees, which is intended to ensure transparency and public engagement.
Regarding the indigenous Sami people and the national minorities, Norwegian authorities have placed emphasis on acknowledging and apologizing for the injustices committed as a part of the harsh assimilation process. Moreover, we believe that knowledge of the past is important, also as a preventive measure. That is why the government has disseminated knowledge on the past policy of assimilation of the Sami people and other minorities. The Sami and the national minorities are an integral part of Norway’s shared and diverse history and cultural heritage. Current policy therefore seeks to strengthen culture and languages that were weakened during the previous assimilation policy. There are also established compensation schemes for persons that have suffered as a consequence of these policies.
Mr. Chair,
As part of this opening statement, I would also like to highlight a few areas that the Norwegian Government deems particularly timely for the present dialogue.
Firstly, I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to some recent developments in the Norwegian Armed Forces.
Following legislative changes on the 1st of July 2024, there is no legal basis for the use of arrest as a disciplinary measure during times of peace or war. The amendment reflects that deprivation of liberty is considered a measure of last resort. Prior to its suspension in 2017, the use of arrest as a disciplinary measure decreased from 4444 cases in 1978 to 16 cases in 2016.
Secondly, the independent military prosecutorial body “the Office of the Judge Advocate General” was dissolved and transferred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As a result, ‘military criminal cases’ are no longer a separate category under Norwegian criminal law. This, in turn, entails that criminal cases originating from the Armed Forces will be handled by the relevant regional prosecutorial body, both in times of peace and armed conflict. The changes ensure that criminal cases from the Armed Forces are handled pursuant to the same rules of procedure and procedural safeguards as other criminal cases.
Thirdly, Norway has an ambition that all children in need of institutional child welfare services shall receive a comprehensive, predictable and adapted care and assistance service that strengthens their needs and resources. A public committee has recently proposed 50 measures to achieve this ambition. The committee’s report has been followed up with a strategy from the Government that points out a new direction for the institutional child welfare service. The strategy emphasises the joint responsibility of various sectors (child welfare, health, schools, correctional services) to ensure that children receive comprehensive help and support, and the opportunity for a good adult life. The strategy will be followed up with a white paper to the Norwegian Parliament in the spring of 2025. To me, this is a good illustration of the general notion that efforts to ensure human rights for all is, by definition, work in progress and something that evolves with changes in our societies.
Mr. Chair,
Norway was recently scrutinised by the European Committee against Torture (the CPT). We received the Committee’s preliminary findings in June and will receive their report in November or December. The Norwegian Government will carefully review the Committee’s report and pay due attention to the findings in the report moving forward.
For the CPT delegation, the main concerns about people in police custody were related to the practical operation of the fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment for persons deprived of their liberty by the police, notably the rights of access to a lawyer from the outset of detention, to notify a third person of the detention and to consult a doctor of one’s own choice as well as the timely notification of these rights.
All persons met by the delegation confirmed that they had been informed of their rights shortly after their arrival at the police station. However, they stated that to obtain information about their rights in writing they had to make a specific request.
In prisons, the preliminary observations by the CPT were overall positive, but the delegation raised some concerns about insufficient healthcare staff present in the prisons, and a high occurrence of mental health problems amongst prisoners. This was especially relevant to female prisoners. As the Norwegian Correctional Services has an Import Model, crucial health-services, amongst others, are provided to the prison by local health service providers. Challenges within the healthcare services in prisons are being addressed through collaboration between the justice and health sectors.
With regard to mental health care, the CPT did not find any physical ill-treatment of patients by staff in any of the institutions visited. The committee noted that the interaction between staff and patients on the wards was calm and respectful. However, concerns were raised about, among other things, the lack of appropriately qualified and experienced staff (psychiatrists, nurses, social workers) and shortage of capacity. Both issues are high on the Government’s agenda.
Finally, Mr. Chair,
We eagerly await the open and constructive dialogue with the Committee and endeavour to address any questions and concerns the Committee may have. In order to present the Committee with appropriate answers, a short break after follow-up questions would be greatly appreciated.
Should we be unable to provide sufficient answers to some of the questions posed today, we are prepared to return to those questions during our second session tomorrow morning if it would please the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.