HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERS REPORT OF NORWAY

The Human Rights Committee has considered the sixth periodic report of Norway on its implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Presenting the report, Astri Aas-Hansen, State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice and the Police, said that the Norwegian government’s response to the July 2011 terrorist attacks was to intensify their resolve for more democracy, more transparency and more inclusiveness. The delegation highlighted that Norway was committed to continue working for inclusion against discrimination, intolerance and hate crime. The goal of the Government’s integration and inclusion policy was that every person who had settled in Norway had equal opportunities and was able to participate in society on an equal footing. The Government had intensified its efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in its 2009 to 2012 Action Plan to Promote Equality and Prevent Ethnic Discrimination. Ms. Aas-Hansen also said that the Government had recently proposed several legislative amendments relating to juveniles in conflict with the law. There were two major proposals: to introduce a new criminal sanction called “juvenile sentence” and to establish separate juvenile prison units.

Committee Experts raised questions concerning, among other matters, the national human rights institution, measures for non-discrimination, the right to life in the context of suicide and homicide, measures taken against female genital mutilation, human trafficking, the application and dissemination of the Istanbul Protocol, assistance provided to refugees, the Commission set up to clarify the terrorist attacks, coercion in mental institutions and free legal aid.

In concluding remarks, Zonke Zanele Majodina, Committee Chairperson, said that the Committee welcomed the initiative to strengthen the constitutional protection of human rights and the anti-discrimination policies, but there was still a concern about excessive use of coercion in mental health institutions, issues on family reunification, and free legal aid. The Committee would welcome more information on pre-trial detention. There were also still concerns about Sea-Sami people and the Roma.

The delegation of Norway included representatives from the Ministry of Justice and the Police, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs, the Ministry of Health and Care Services, the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, and the Permanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations in Geneva.

The next public meeting of the Committee will take place at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 27 October at Palais des Nations, when it will meet with State parties.

Report of Norway

The sixth periodic report of Norway (CCPR/C/NOR/6) notes that Norway ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1972. In 2009, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was incorporated into the Human Rights Act and has thus been given precedence. To promote gender equality, the main strategy is gender mainstreaming, including gender budgeting. This means awareness and practical tools to implement gender equality in all of the Government’s policy areas. A new report shows that on average women earn 15 per cent per hour less than men. The new government will soon commence a tripartite cooperation between the Employer Organization, the Trade Unions and the State to follow up on the report’s findings. Moreover, Norway passed a law prohibiting female genital mutilation (FGM) in 1995, amended in 2004. This prohibition also applies when the procedure is carried out outside Norway. The scope of the legal aid system has been broadened, ensuring legal aid to offended parties who consider reporting offences such as trafficking in human beings, genital mutilation, forced marriage and domestic violence.

With regard to terrorism, the legislation on terrorist acts and terrorist-related offences was recently revised. In December 2008 the new section 147c entered into force, stating that public incitement to commit a terrorist offence, recruitment, and training for terrorism, is prohibited. This provision implements articles 5 – 7 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. The new Penal Code of 2005, which is planned to enter into force on 1 January 2012, contains a separate chapter on terrorist offences and terrorist activities. On Norway’s fifth periodic report, the Committee expressed its concern about the potentially overbroad reach of the definition of terrorism in section 147 b of the Penal Code of 1902. In the Penal Code of 2005, the definition of terrorism is more restricted; one element is that in order for a criminal act to be considered a terrorist act, the act has to be committed with a so called “terrorist intent”. Also on the Penal Code, separate and detailed provisions on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes were adopted in 2008 as part of a new chapter 16 of the Penal Code 2005. By these amendments Norway is able to prosecute all crimes that currently fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, thus complying with the principle of complementarity envisaged in the Rome Statute.

Concerning asylum procedures, there was a significant increase in applications for asylum in Norway between 2007 and 2008 (121 per cent). The Government has taken measures to limit the number of asylum seekers who are not in need of protection, and furthermore to prevent that Norway receive a disproportionate amount of the asylum seekers coming to Europe. One of the new regulations states that the right to be recognized as a refugee pursuant to the Immigration Act, shall not apply if the foreign national may obtain
effective protection in other parts of his or her country of origin than the area from which
the applicant has fled, provided the situation in the return area does not give grounds for
granting a residence permit based on strong humanitarian considerations.

Presentation of the report of Norway

ASTRI AAS-HANSEN, State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice and the Police, summarized the developments that have occurred in Norway since the last report was delivered in autumn 2009. Only a few days after submitting its written reply to the Committee’s list of issues, Norway suffered its worst attacks since World War II. On 22 July 2011, 77 people were killed, and many more wounded, in the attacks on the government buildings and in the shootings on Utøya. The attacks were apparently fueled by hatred of a multicultural society and were directed at the political forces that were allowing increased immigration to Norway. The Norwegian government’s response to the attacks was to intensify their resolve for more democracy, more transparency and more inclusiveness. The delegation highlighted that Norway was committed to continue working for inclusion against discrimination, intolerance and hate crime. The goal of the Government’s integration and inclusion policy was that every person who had settled in Norway had equal opportunities and was able to participate in society on an equal footing. The Government had intensified its efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in its Action Plan to Promote Equality and Prevent Ethnic Discrimination for 2009 to 2012. Norway was also working on a revision of the anti-discrimination legislation and a proposal for a new act to regulate discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender equality.

A recent study in Sami areas of Norway indicated that almost four out of ten Sami had experienced discrimination “sometimes” or “often”. Sami respondents were twice as likely to report that they had been subject to harassment as the control group. Norway thus needed to continue its policy for combating prejudice against the Sami and their culture. The establishment of the Sami Parliament in 1989 and the recently developed procedures for democratic participation by the Sami were important measures in that regard. When it came to hate crime, the Director General of the Norwegian Prosecuting Authority had emphasized that priority must be given to the work against violence based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or skin colour.

Furthermore the Government had recently proposed several legislative amendments relating to juveniles in conflict with the law. There were two major proposals: to introduce a new criminal sanction called “juvenile sentence” and to establish separate juvenile prison units.

Summary of replies to the list of issues in connection with the consideration of the sixth periodic report of the State of Norway

KRISTIN RYAN, Deputy Director General and Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Justice and the Police, answered the question on discriminatory exercise of stop and search powers by police, and said that a study had shown no person was specifically stopped on basis of ethnicity. In employment practice, equality was promoted and businesses had to conform. To counter discriminatory practices, rent subsidies had been increased.

The Penal Code on domestic violence was amended in 2009, although the amendment had not yet entered into force. Victims of domestic violence received compensation from the State, and crisis centers had been opened in every county. The penalty for committing female genital mutilation (FGM) had been made more severe. There was an action plan against forced marriage. Measures to protect children from violence and neglect had also been improved: in 2009 a free hotline for children was established, child welfare services had been increased and the police had to investigate any sudden death of a child.

Regarding asylum procedures, if a person was at risk in the country that the person came from, Norway did not return the person to that country. For example, Norway had stopped returning people to Greece. Concerning human trafficking, by 2010, 319 persons had accepted assistance and protection measures and the local municipalities had to provide accommodation for the victims of trafficking.

On pre-trial detention, Courts were legally obliged to give priority to cases where the accused were in detention. Norway would not withdraw its reservation to issue 12, dealing with juveniles in prison. A suspect and his or her defense counsel had the right to access all material documents and information from the case investigation, including photographs. However, exceptions may be made in certain cases in order to protect the fundamental rights of another individual or to safeguard an important public interest.

Ms. Ryan said that hate speech against Sami people undoubtedly did occur. Several policies had been developed to combat the problem: for example in 2010, in consultation with the Sami Parliament, the Government established a new practice to deal with equality and diversity issues at the Resource Centre for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Child welfare services had a responsibility for all unaccompanied minor asylum-seekers. The Committee had raised the matter of discrimination of persons belonging to ethnic and national minorities. In reply Norway brought a number of policies to the Committee’s attention including the adoption of an 2009 to 2012 Action Plan to promote equality and prevent ethnic discrimination and an Action Plan for the Roma People. The project “Romani – from Child to Adult”, focusing on Romani culture had been successfully operated in daycare centers and schools for several years.

Ms. Ryan also referred to measures addressing the shortage of teachers and educational materials for the Sami and Kven languages. Regarding the rights of the Sea Sami people, in May 2011 an agreement with the Sami parliament was reached on the establishment of a right to fish – with certain terms – in Sami areas, a quota for fishing vessels in open fisheries and the appointment of a local fisheries board. The agreement proposals were endorsed by a majority in the Sami parliament in June 2011, in spite of the fact that the Sami parliament had a different interpretation of the legal basis of the right to fish. The Government would present the proposals to the Norwegian Parliament for approval.

Questions by Experts

A Committee member congratulated Norway on the progress it had made. The member said that nevertheless the situation of the national human rights institution was disappointing: the international coordination framework on the Paris Principles said that Norway might lose its “A” status; the State party should take action on that.

The Committee asked for more details on the White Paper for equal pay for all genders. Norway had made good progress on the issue of alleged discriminatory police stops on the streets. The Committee also welcomed the Action Plan on general discrimination. To which extent did people from ethnic minorities participate in the design of the Plan? How could the persons hold the Government accountable? There was extensive information on discrimination in the public sector work force, and stronger measures could be taken to combat discrimination at the municipal level.

Issue 4 concerned the right to life, including in the context of suicide and homicide. An expert said that it was positive that the issue received attention. However there was little data on seclusion or shielding, and the use of belts and involuntary medication, and potential litigants did not receive enough legal aid.

Did the Committee on Rape still exist? When did the female genital mutilation (FGM) provision to come into force? How did Norway encourage affected communities to report FGM, and how did they work with relevant communities to prevent the practice?

An expert asked about the need to investigate the death scene in cases of the sudden death of a child. Those investigations were restricted to children four years and below – what was the reason for that age limit, and why could parents refuse the investigation?

No statistics were given on human trafficking victims by gender, age or country of origin; the Committee would like to receive that information.

Refugees received assistance in Norway; and refugees coming from Greece were no longer sent back. Could Norway consider not sending back certain refugees to Italy as well? Was there enough dissemination of the Istanbul Protocol among civil servants and the police dealing with refugees? There was a lack of technical assistance, such as medical treatment for refugees who had suffered torture. However those figures implied that Norway did investigate what torture or treatment refugees had suffered. Was there really a medical examination carried out for refugees and asylum-seekers, especially those who said they had been tortured? Was it systematic or not? Did Norway have counter-examinations?

Was it true that no legal aid was available for asylum seekers? There was a danger of refoulement if the Istanbul Protocol was not entirely applied, whether in Norway or in the other countries.

The question of violence against women was raised during Norway’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) recently. There were not enough investigations for rape cases. The number of investigated cases at the time of the UPR was very low – had any changes been made yet?

Had any Supreme Court cases been interpreted in the light of the Covenant? Was Norwegian law and its Constitution interpreted as a higher authority than the Covenant?

An expert welcomed the establishment of a Government Commission on terrorist attacks.

The Committee appreciated the positive results on the employment of people with an immigrant background. How many such persons were civil servants?

Response by the Delegation

Norway took its human rights obligations very seriously. All Ministries were responsible for following up the recommendations of Treaty Bodies. Norway had established an inter-ministerial working group on human rights which met twice a year, and more frequently if needed. There was no national Action Plan for general human rights issues, but there were Action Plans on specific issues. The goal was to have a well-functioning national human rights institution and thus there would be a working group on the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights.

The White Paper on Equal Pay had been approved by Parliament and a bill was currently being drafted.

Concerning the Government’s Plan of Action against discrimination, the Government did involve civil society in drafting. Norway had several action plans in different areas which contained both sectoral and cross-sectoral measures. A report on discrimination called “Room for Everyone” had been published and efforts were made to improve statistics on cases of discrimination.

Ways to improve knowledge about coercion in mental health institutions were being explored. There were major geographical differences between the hospitals, due to different professional attitudes and the Government was attempting to change that.

On the issue of rape and violence against women in general, rape was seen as a real challenge for the legal system in Norway. There had been a significant increase in rapes reported over the past few years but now that increase had evened out and the fact-finding committee on rape had been dissolved. A number of measures to increase competence among police officers had been taken and a special unit to investigate rape cases had been established. Furthermore, when a rape case was ambiguous, public prosecutors must get a second opinion before closing the case.

A delegate said that there was indeed a lack of statistics in cases of domestic violence, and a plan was in place to improve statistics and general knowledge of domestic violence.

The ombudsman could act on matters on his own initiative.

The coordination unit for trafficking in persons was tasked with improving the statistics and since 2010 results had improved. There were data protection issues so it was not an easy task. Often traffickers were prevented from entering Norwegian markets so the policy was more preventive and it could thus be difficult to take the perpetrators to court.

The principle of non-refoulement was paramount in dealing with refugees asking for asylum in Norway. Legal aid was provided to refugees. Concerning the Istanbul Protocol, refugees systematically underwent a physical examination. Revised guidelines on that subject were issued in 2010 and included the situation of vulnerable and isolated migrant minors.

The figures for the employment of people with immigrant background in the Government Ministries sector were as follow: in 2008, it was 3.2 per cent of staff had immigrant backgrounds, in 2009 it was 3.6 per cent of staff, and in 2010 the figure was 3.8 per cent.

Questions by Experts

The Committee was pleased that the report on coercion in mental health institutions had been published. There was an issue of acceding to courts for the persons concerned.

Internally, the use of small arms was very well regulated, but what happened to small arms when they were exported? How did the State party control whether those arms were or were not used to kill?

Concerning persons under the mental health regime, had there been ill-treatment and had there been effective investigation on it? Had specific measures been taken to take care of the victims?

The criminal code linked rape directly to physical violence but there was a need to emphasize the lack of consent in legislation.

Response by the Delegation

The definition of rape also applied to situations where the victim was unconscious or unable to resist the act. The Norwegian Government was constantly looking at measures to prevent rape. Shelters and health services were also being improved for rape victims.

New warning provisions for whistleblowers in mental health institutions were being implemented. Medical staff were sentenced on the basis of violation of law.

The social inclusion goals were developed through existent statistical data. There were discriminatory mechanisms in the rental markets yet it was difficult to prove and to counter. The market was mainly composed of private landlords and the results were gathered by interviewing immigrants. A White Paper in 2012 would deal with those issues.

There were increased penalties against female genital mutilation (FGM) and the Norwegian Government encouraged victims to report to the police. It was a criminal act to aiding or abet female genital mutilation punished by imprisonment of up to fifteen years. It was not entirely clear when the new law would enter into force. The fight against FGM needed a broad-based approach. The main goal of measures to support the concerned communities aimed at health care measures, dialogue on information with affected groups (it was part of the language programs), it was also addressed in the school and maternal health services. The Government had also been working with non-governmental organizations; they were key actors in this field. There were 41 official measures. The current action plan ended this year but would be renewed next year.

The delegation would provide more details about the principle on presumption and the conflict between national law and international law. However the delegate noted that the knowledge of the Covenant had certainly matured in the minds of judges and civil servants. The delegation would also return to the Committee at a later date with an answer on the question of the Istanbul Protocol.

There was a yearly report on the subject of arms exports, which increased transparency and public debate. Norway would not export arms to regions where there were wars or threats of wars. Concerning re-exportation of arms within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), States could not export arms from another NATO country without prior consent. There was a large and ongoing public debate in Norway about the issue of re-exportation of arms.

Question by the Experts

It was not enough to hear that pre-trial detention had increased because there were more crimes and detentions, and that pre-trial detention was then deducted from the eventual prison sentence time. Pre-trial detention should really be a last resort. Also, there were too many isolated detentions. Which authority made the decision on isolation and confinement? Who decided on how dangerous a person was? How was that re-evaluated? Keeping minors in custody was a frequent practice and could last up to 90 hours. Which law authorized that? Did they have an ad hoc guardian during the hearings and were the hearings video-recorded? The non-communication of evidence was harmful for the defense. In what conditions was it determined that public interest was upheld by not communicating evidence to the defense?

Committee disagreed with the way means testing was led. If someone was modestly wealthy, legal aid should still be available because the person could have several dependents. Sometimes even when someone was successful in getting legal aid, the means were often not sufficient to bring the case to appeal.

Norway said it was committed to keep the reservation on the adoption of a law that criminalized incitement to war.

Measures taken to prevent hate speech against Sami people were listed in the report. However, how was the situation now, especially after the events of last summer? Was hate speech increasing or declining?

Children were under the protection of the family and of society. There were financial burdens on immigrants who were seeking reunification and that was against the Covenant. The criteria were too strict. It was not only an economic problem; the State had to protect the basic rights of the people and not destroy them by coercive legislation. It also seemed that the ordinary courts were more familiar with the Covenant than purely administrative tribunals. Also, it was an issue that the income of the immigrant trying to go to Norway was not taken into account for family reunification. Norway said that that was a measure to counter forced marriage, but the Committee deemed that that was too strict of a measure and too broad to counter forced marriage; that needed adaptation.

An expert commented that there were around 400 Roma in prison, which was a very high number, and Norway could probably have avoided that.

Could the Committee have more details about the agreement made with the Sea-Sami people about having a local fishing board?

A high percentage of children from migrant families suffered racial hatred, an issue also raised by The Committee on the Rights of the Child. Also, Norway did not conduct enough of a follow-up for minors who were asylum-seekers.

Response by the Delegation

Persons spent 3920 days in pre-trial detention last year, which was high. That was due to an increase in theft by foreign organized groups who were much more present in Norway than a few years ago. The use of electronic monitoring bracelets could be an alternative to pre-trial detention and was being considered. There was an absolute limit of eight weeks of isolation for children. There were only ten children at a time in prison in Norway on average. There was an increase of crimes committed by foreign children who were in Norway without accompanying adults. Legal proceedings involving children were not video-recorded.

Disciplinary criteria for prisons were provided by law. The prisoner should be excluded by the presence of other prisoners. Exclusion was only used as a measure of last resort. A medical practitioner must see the prisoner if needed and they could decide whether the measure could be limited. A decision on exclusion could be appealed.

Electronic monitoring should be used as much as possible, but sometimes children must serve a sentence in prison, although children were always separated from adults.

On preventive detention, the level of repression in Norway was low in comparison to other States, even for murder and other serious crimes. The threshold on preventive detention was high.

It was true that even when applicants were granted free legal aid it did not always cover all costs.

Norway was following up from the recommendations of the OSCE on election procedures and complaints. There were no convictions yet under the new article 20.

Concerning hate speech after the attacks, Norway would need more time to evaluate the impact of the summer attacks, and the impact on hate speech. The Government did not want to rush into any amendments of the laws on freedom of expression.

The consultations with the Sea-Sami people had been very constructive. While there was a different legal reasoning from the Norwegian ministries, consultations had focused on practical measures and agreement had been reached on the fisheries. The mandate of the Commission on land-rights claims would be extended to any private rights to fish that may exist.

Consultations had also started on many land rights and land claims of Sami people. Norway was in a comprehensive process of finalizing these consultations. With regard to hate speech targeting the Sami people, it was important to break the perceptions that there was a cultural hierarchy by supporting measures such as the Sami Parliament.

A plan of action on issues concerning the Roma people was being prepared. There had been dialogue between the Government and the Roma people to learn more about how to improve the relations. There was reluctance to lead registration of foreigners on ethnic criteria. Three main measures were taken on adult education and an advisory centre was set up on access to housing and health and other services. Mediators were also available. There were challenges concerning children’s school attendance due to the Roma travelling during the school year.

The Government’s current plan of action against discrimination was running from 2009 to 2013. The goals included an inclusive educational system from kindergarten onwards.

Follow-up questions by the Committee

The Committee emphasized again that with so few juveniles in prison, they should benefit from better and faster treatment. Moreover, it should be possible to video-record the proceedings.

Response by the Delegation

Norway did use other measures such as electronic monitoring. Minors were only put in pre-trial detention if an extremely serious crime had been committed.

Concluding observations

ZONKE ZANELE MAJODINA, Committee Chairperson, said that it had been a constructive dialogue. The Committee welcomed the initiative to strengthen the constitutional protection of human rights and the anti-discrimination policies, but there was still a concern about excessive use of coercion in mental health institutions, issues on family reunification, and free legal aid. The Committee would welcome more information on pre-trial detention if possible. There were also still concerns about Sea-Sami people and the Roma. The delegation could send more written information on these issues after the meeting.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CT11/021E