COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERS REPORT OF NORWAY
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Norway on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Petter Wille, Ambassador for Human Rights and Democracy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway and head of the delegation, introducing the report, said prevention of torture and all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment were high on the Government’s agenda. Norway strongly supported the Special Rapporteur against torture and had provided financial support to the Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. The process of ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention was well under way, and following consultation with civil society, ratification was expected in 2008. Norway also intended to sign the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance by the end of 2007 or early 2008, and a general revision of the Penal Code was under way.
Committee Expert Fernando Marino Menendez, who acted as Rapporteur for the report of Norway, noted the difficulty of establishing torture as a criminally defined offence in national legislation. The Parliament of Norway had defined the offence of torture as a crime in national provisions with a very broad set of discrimination criteria. There remained questions regarding the long list of motivations for discrimination and their relationship with the definition of torture defined by the Convention. Were there any problems regarding any form of discrimination in Norway? He also asked for more information about the regime of incommunicado detention as there seemed to be no limit on the use of solitary confinement.
The Co-Rapporteur for the report, Committee Expert Wang Xuexian, said new regulations on pretrial detention made certain stipulations, but there were doubts about the reality on the ground. There were allegations that some detainees were awoken at night to prevent them from committing suicide. Was this true? Some statistics on asylum detainees were absent. How many had been returned and how many granted political asylum. Recently 21 persons had been returned to Uzbekistan. What happened to these people afterwards?
Also representing the delegation of Norway were representatives from the Ministry of Justice and the Police, the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion, and the Ministry of Health and Care Services, as well as the Norwegian Mission in Geneva.
Norway is among the 145 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 November to provide its responses to the questions raised today.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear the answers of Uzbekistan to the questions posed by Experts on Friday, 9 November.
Report of Norway
The fifth periodic report of Norway (CAT/C/81/Add.4) says several new measures have been taken to prevent acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Norwegian Extradition Act had been amended three times during the reporting period, though not specifically in relation to torture. Special penal provision against torture was adopted under the Penal Code and the Code itself is under total revision.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has been implemented under domestic law. International law and human rights training (including on the Committee Against Torture) in the police force has been strengthened. Courses for prison and correctional staff have been developed. In the health services, medical and nursing training have been improved with a focus on the holistic view of human beings, recognizing ethical dilemmas, and acting according to ethical principles. The report also covers improvements in criminal procedure (pre-trial solitary confinement, remand, prison capacity) and in the detention of asylum seekers. It covers the role of the Central Compensation Board, child welfare and psychiatric provisions, and other measures.
Presentation of the Report
PETTER WILLE, Ambassador for Human Rights and Democracy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, head of the delegation, in his opening statement, said prevention of torture and all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment were high on the Government’s agenda. Norway strongly supported the Special Rapporteur against torture and had provided financial support to the Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
Mr. Wille said the process of ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention was well under way, and following consultation with civil society, ratification was expected in 2008. Norway also intended to sign the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance by the end of 2007 or early 2008, and a general revision of the Penal Code was under way.
It had been difficult to provide all the statistical information on immigration requested in the list of issues, especially information from before 2004, when the Police Immigration Service was established, Mr. Wille said. But information was now available aggregated by nationality.
Mr. Wille said that in concluding observations on the fourth periodic report, the Committee had recommended amendments to the immigration act be included in the next report. This was provided in the fifth report. Also, a proposal for a new immigration and asylum act was before Parliament and could enter into force in 2010. This would, inter alia, strengthen family unification for those covered by a new refugee concept. Reception centers were provided for asylum seekers awaiting processing of their applications. Two transit centres for rejected asylum seekers had also been opened, transferring to the State some of the burden faced by municipalities. From 1 September 2007 all adult asylum seekers were being offered Norwegian language courses.
Children in reception centers were covered by new provisions in the Immigration Regulations, with attention paid to the child’s age, whether he/she had attended school in Norway, and other details. Custody of unaccompanied single minors would be shifted from the Immigration Services to the Child Welfare Services from December 2007.
Norway had adopted a plan of action to tackle female genital mutilation, including information and attitude adjustment, Mr. Wille said.
Questions Raised by Committee Experts
FERNANDO MARINO MENENDEZ, the Committee Expert who served as Country Rapporteur to the report of Norway, noted the developments that had taken place in Norway, and the extremely positive landscape in relation to human rights that existed there, notably with regard to Articles 1-9 of the Convention.
The Country Rapporteur noted the difficulty of establishing torture as a criminally defined offence in national legislation. The Parliament of Norway had defined the offence of torture as a crime in national provisions with a very broad set of discrimination criteria. There remained questions regarding the long list of motivations for discrimination and their relationship with the definition of torture defined by the Convention. Were there any problems regarding any form of discrimination in Norway?
The Human Rights Act in Norway mentioned a list of binding instruments, but the Committee Against Torture was not among them. Mr. Marino Menendez asked why that was the case? What was the opinion of the delegation about including the Convention in this list of treaties considered binding under Norwegian law?
He asked for more information about the regime of incommunicado detention as there seemed to be no limit on the use of solitary confinement. On the internment center for foreign nationals, there did not seem to be court or Prosecutor’s Office oversight, and the police had a lot of room to manoeuvre. It seemed to be the only centre (excluding the transit centers) holding foreign nationals and a number of non-governmental organizations as well as the parliamentary ombudsman had expressed concern. Were journalists allowed in? What was the inspection procedure?
Mr. Marino Menendez said on prevention of torture, there was no legislation regarding manufacture and export of materials that might be used for torture or inhumane treatment. Was the Government taking any steps in this regard?
Norwegian peacekeepers in Afghanistan had detained and handed over Afghan citizens to the Afghan Government. What guarantees were provided to ensure these people were treated in accordance with international standards, and what could the Government do to ensure that these guarantees were upheld? What were the guidelines on handing over these individuals. Although on Afghan territory, the Norwegian forces were exercising de facto legal force and therefore had responsibilities.
There were problems in respect of the principle of non-refoulement. There was a problem in establishing how long foreign nationals should be held prior to expulsion, and whether detention could be prolonged beyond the de facto legal timeline.
Mr. Marino Menendez said it appeared that asylum seekers or immigrants from Uzbekistan had been rejected without assessing them. Was Uzbekistan considered an “at risk” country? Had there been an individual examination of cases? Was there follow-up and oversight on rejected persons by the Norwegian Government?
WANG XUEXIAN, the Committee Expert who acted as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Norway, said the report said the principle of using only the mildest form of physical intervention was emphasized in the training of personnel. What was meant by mildest form? Were there monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for the training programmes?
Mr. Wang said new regulations on pretrial detention made certain stipulations, but there were doubts about the reality on the ground. There were allegations that some detainees were awoken at night to prevent them from committing suicide. Was this true? Some statistics on asylum detainees were absent – how many had been returned and how many granted political asylum? Recently 21 persons had been returned to Uzbekistan. What happened to these people afterwards? There were certain named cases involving treatment of detainees that could be regarded as inhuman or cruel treatment, leading to deaths in detention. Investigation had yielded 16 such deaths in police custody according to Norwegian statistics. No criminal proceedings were recommended, and some had questioned the objectivity of the investigation into these cases. What were the results of official inquiries? Both victims were of foreign origin, and the issue of the treatment of persons of African origin by police and emergency services rang alarm bells in the Committee.
Another Committee Expert asked about how, in the event of conflict between the Convention against Torture and the Immigration Act, one was deemed to prevail over the other domestically? There had been a case regarding a violation of article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Had the Convention Against Torture been invoked? Did the Government seek diplomatic assurances in extradition cases?
An Expert commented that the numbers of asylum seekers had decreased quite sharply. Was there an interpretation of this trend? Was it true that some asylum seekers had been in detention for two years? There had been allegations that some were deprived of food and blankets for several hours.
Other Experts raised questions on whether there were extraordinary renditions involving Norwegian territory or airspace? Was there dialogue with the relevant bodies in the Council of Europe? Would the Government of Norway monitor the situation of renditions in or over Norwegian territory? Was the definition of terrorism in the civil and criminal codes excessively broad? Concerning prosecution under international law, there was a problem in the interpretation of public interest. Could public interest impede the prosecution of a foreign national suspected of terrorism? The Convention established the obligation to either prosecution or extradition if there was a danger of torture. There were some concerns over the use of provisional measures in relation to foreign nationals. Concerning businesses in Norway or governed by Norwegian law who may be involved in torture, there had been problems connected to Guantanamo Bay. To what extent did Norwegian law impact on citizens or businesses abroad involved in the construction or operation of facilities where torture may be carried out? No one had been tried under the new torture provisions, but had there been any complaints filed under them?
An Expert commented that possible racist motives for violence were covered by the definition of torture. Statistics would be very helpful, but equally, there was language in the civil penal code that appeared to be more generous than for most countries, but was less complete than the convention itself. Could the Code be amended to address these shortfalls of language and definition? Furthermore, increased violence against Jews had been reported by some authorities. What kind of preventive measures had been considered to enhance policing and police sensitivities to this? Could the delegation elaborate on the collation of statistics, notably on inter-prisoner violence and sexual violence. If there were no exact numbers, were there exemplary studies or other ways of learning from practice? The high levels of domestic violence against women and migrant victims had been highlighted by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. What was the current situation? Also, there was a trend towards radicalization of the treatment of migrants throughout Europe, and anti-migrant feeling, racism and xenophobia. What could Norway do to mitigate this?
An Expert said that compensation was governed by some conditions, for example, only for violent crimes. How was “violent crime” defined? Did such conditions limit victims’ rights of redress? Norwegian law condoned the use of belt restraints or other harsh treatments for the mentally ill. One patient had reportedly been restrained 150 times in nine months, according to reports. This seemed excessive. Another Expert again stressed the concern as to why the Convention had not been named as one of the binding instruments in Norwegian law. He added that the war on terror had led to infringements of civil liberties that should be closely monitored.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CAT07028E