COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF NORWAY

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Norway to questions raised by Committee Experts on the fifth periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Responding to questions raised by the Committee Experts on Monday, 12 November, the Norwegian delegation, led by Petter Wille, Ambassador for Human Rights and Democracy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that Norwegian legislation complied with obligations signed up to under the Convention. The Criminal Procedure, Immigration and other Acts contained compliancy provisions. Protection against torture was guaranteed under numerous instruments of Norwegian law. On the definition of torture, for example in the Penal Code, Norway felt the wording of relevant instruments was fully compatible with the Convention against Torture.

On pretrial detention, the delegation said amendments to the law were designed to tackle the issue. The matter was being assessed and hopefully results of the evaluation would be available within a year. The Norwegian police had revised its codes of practice on restraint, proscribing face-down restraint and other restraint techniques. Sitting on detainees was prohibited and the neck hold allowed only in self-defence. There was compulsory training on these issues for police and prison officers. All questions of torture or degrading treatment in prisons were to be investigated by the police. On claims of police brutality, training was improved through courses in police ethics.

Norway had signed a memorandum with the Afghan authorities concerning handover of captives by the International Security Assistance Forces, and detainees’ rights were safeguarded in cooperation with Afghan human rights bodies. Detainees could be interviewed and visited freely. Subsequent use of the death penalty was not allowed under the memorandum. With regard to rendition flights, all flights were registered by the air traffic authorities and Norway was vigilant, but the chance of detecting the presence of passengers held against their will were small.

Fernando Marino Menendez, the Committee Expert acting as Country Rapporteur for report, in further questions, asked about measures taken in relation to family reunification, to determine the identity of persons and their family members, for example DNA techniques? There were apparently new transit centers for foreigners without residence permits. Was the regime in these the same as the main centre for foreigners described in the report? He asked if there were public standards for police behaviour covering all aspects of police use of force?

Wang Xuexian, the Committee Expert acting as Co-Rapporteur for the report, said he was still concerned about racial discrimination in the police. He asked about time limits for coercive measures in mental health facilities. Were there models for recognising the signs of torture among refugees and asylum seekers?

Members of the Norwegian delegation included 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.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 14 November, it will examine the fourth periodic report of Portugal (CAT/C/67Add.6)

Response of Norway

Responding to the questions raised by Committee Experts on Monday, 12 November, the delegation of Norway, led by PETTER WILLE, Ambassador for Human Rights and Democracy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said Norway was firmly committed to improved integration and co-existence of migrants in Europe. Numerous initiatives had been devised to ameliorate relations with Muslim groups.

Norway had not incorporated the Convention on Torture into domestic law and saw no link between incorporation and compliance. The delegation stressed that Norwegian legislation complied with obligations signed up to under the Convention. The Criminal Procedure, Immigration and other Acts contained compliancy provisions. Protection against torture was guaranteed under numerous instruments of Norwegian law. It was the view of the Norwegian Government that only more general conventions should be incorporated into the Law on Human Rights. More specialized conventions were not incorporated, and the torture convention was one of these. There was continuing debate about this in Norway.

Regarding the definition of torture, for example in the Penal Code, Norway felt the wording of relevant instruments was fully compatible with the Convention on Torture. Section 219 of the Penal Code penalized domestic violence, and there would be further measures to combat this in coming years. Increasing numbers of women of ethnic origin were finding themselves in shelters for victims of domestic violence. The delegation provided the statistics on rape requested.

Discrimination and perceived discrimination in the government sector were being examined and results would help to ensure equal treatment for all in the public sector. A new action plan against racism and discrimination was proposed for 2008, along with a major conference.

On pretrial detention, amendments to the law were designed to tackle the issue. The matter was being assessed and hopefully results of the evaluation would be available within a year. The Convention Against Torture had not, to the delegation’s knowledge, been applied in criminal court proceedings. There were some situations where detention of foreign nationals was possible. Custody could not exceed six weeks, or twelve weeks on grounds of identity. Courts were to periodically reexamine the grounds for detention. Detention could not be imposed if other remedies were possible (reporting, seizure of travel documents, remaining in a given place of residence, etc).

On the holding centre, detainees were entitled to receive visitors, obtain medical treatment and make phone calls among other rights. Journalists had access to the centre. Nobody had been detained for two years to the delegation’s knowledge. There had been a routine of room checking of detainees to prevent self-harm, but this had been discontinued. Unaccompanied minors and families with children were not generally placed in these facilities. Incarceration times were strictly limited.

Norway was currently studying different models for implementing the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, the delegation said.

On Norwegian forces in the International Security Assistance Force, Norway had signed a memorandum with the Afghan authorities and detainees’ rights were safeguarded in cooperation with Afghan human rights bodies. Detainees could be interviewed and visited freely. Subsequent use of the death penalty was not allowed under the memorandum. There was no information saying that the agreement with the Afghan authorities had been violated. Less than 10 cases of handover were known.

Regarding rendition flights: in Norway, flights were registered by the air traffic authorities, and Norway was vigilant, but the chance of detecting the presence of passengers held against their will was small.

The Immigration Appeals Board provided adequate support to caseworkers on the alert for applicants who had been subject to torture in their home countries, and this was in line with the Istanbul Protocol.

According to police information, 21 persons were transported to Uzbekistan from Norway in the period concerned. The treatment and safety of these individuals concerning their transfer and other details were recorded.

Norway had no list of countries declared “safe”. Except for unaccompanied minors and Dublin regulation cases, applications were examined on their merit. No accelerated procedures were available. Rejection of asylum applications was in compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. There were adequate precautions to ensure aliens were not transferred to another State in violation of the principle of non-refoulement.

Foreigners had the right to remain in Norway awaiting the decision of the Immigration Appeals Board, unless requests were manifestly unfounded, for example, made on economic grounds or using false identities. Applicants risking torture if sent back home were not in this “manifestly unfounded” category. Decline in asylum applications during the period had been observed in several European countries. The delegation provided statistics for those granted asylum and those receiving subsidiary protection from 2003 to 2005. Diplomatic assurances could in exceptional cases be sought, such as those involving national security.

On the definition of terrorism, Norway had adopted measures to fight the financing of terrorism. To avoid Norway becoming a safe haven, Norway had adopted the same definition as the Council of Europe in its Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism.

On prosecution of crimes of torture committed abroad, Norwegian criminal law was applicable to acts committed abroad by a foreigner. This also applied to Norwegian companies.

The Norwegian police had revised its codes of practice on restraint, proscribing face-down restraint and other restraint techniques. Sitting on detainees was prohibited and the neck hold allowed only in self-defence. There was compulsory training on these issues for police and prison officers.

Prison capacity was improving rapidly and delays in transferring detainees from police cells to prisons would decrease. All persons kept in police holding cells over night were entitled to clean blankets and mattresses. Sanctions for breaches of rules could involve loss of pay, loss of privileges or leave, or other penalties. Misuse of drugs in prisons was tackled through counseling, medication and remedial programmes. All questions of torture or degrading treatment in prisons were investigated by the police. Correctional services might sanction employees even in the absence of police certainty about a case.

Cases of deaths in custody had been investigated. Autopsies showed that the deaths were directly the result of drug abuse. The last inter-prisoner killing was 32 years ago. On inter-prisoner violence, statistics were incomplete or inaccurate. Norway would be undertaking research on this in the coming years. Prisoners were asked annually to evaluate the prison service, and there was current research on prison life showing that personal security was not a serious concern.

On claims of police brutality, training was improved through courses in police ethics. Police brutality was not a serious problem in Norway. Any such instances were addressed in the Criminal Courts. On the objectivity of investigations by the Special Unit of Police Investigation, the delegation said the Unit was not part of the police or prosecution service and members came from different backgrounds. There would be an evaluation of the Special Unit in 2008.

On compensation for victims, delegates said those seeking compensation should report the crime to the police, except in special circumstances.

On adequate healthcare, clinical competence centers were present throughout Norway and they were especially focused on traumatized refugees. The Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies had been created to review knowledge about these issues. Numerous research and pilot projects involving refugees and asylum seekers were under way. There was evaluation of professional guidelines for services to refugee and mental health groups.

On coercive measures in healthcare mentioned by Committee Expert Wang Xuexian, the delegation had been unable to find data on the cases cited, but legal safeguards for mental health patients were described in the report.

Questions and Observations by Committee Experts

FERNANDO MARIÑO MENENDEZ, the Committee Expert acting as Country Rapporteur for the Report of Norway, on the issue of return of foreigners whose applications for asylum were refused or were manifestly unfounded, asked if Norway paid the costs of returning them to far away countries? What would be the position of a person asking for compensation after torture? Could the person ask for compensation from a Norwegian court?

On family reunifications, Mr. Marino Menendez asked what measures there were to determine the identity of persons and their family members, for example DNA techniques? There were apparently new transit centers for foreigners without residence permits. Was the regime in these the same as the main centre for foreigners described in the report? He asked if there were public standards for police behaviour covering all aspects of police use of force?

WANG XUEXIAN, the Committee Expert acting as Co-Rapporteur for the Report, said he was still concerned about racial discrimination in the police. He suggested information on this would be useful for training purposes too. He asked about time limits for coercive measures in mental health facilities. Were there models for recognising the signs of torture among refugees and asylum seekers? He said he remained unconvinced about the stance on rendition flights.

Other Experts asked about individuals handed over to Afghan authorities: what were the legal human rights references used to support this handover? What conventions or charters were used? Acting in a foreign country with a foreign government required clear legal frameworks.

A Committee Expert said that while torture was not a big problem in Norway the issues of incorporation and definition and punitive measures were important as Scandinavian countries were seen as a standard-bearer. It should be aware of the expectations of the world community.

Response of the Delegation

The delegation reiterated that the Council of Europe had mentioned certain countries allegedly involved in extraordinary rendition but Norway was not among them. DNA testing of refugees was possible to provide additional supporting information in cases of doubt. New transit centers for rejected asylum seekers, located near Oslo, were established to ensure an adequate standard of living for people who otherwise would be appealing for welfare support at local municipalities. Food, shelter, and basic healthcare were provided but no cash allowances were offered. They were well staffed, 24-hours a day. Residents were free to come and go.


Concluding Remarks

ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, Chairperson of the Committee, said there had been good cooperation and the Committee looked forward to Norway’s follow-up on issues brought up in the debate.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT07031E