The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Norway, with Committee Experts commending the steps taken by the State to prevent illegal adoptions, while asking questions about missing asylum-seeking minors and discriminatory policies affecting the Sami people.
Fidelis Edge Kanyongolo, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said Norway had taken positive steps to recognise and prevent illegal adoptions, including the establishment of a dedicated adoption investigation committee. How was the State party working to ensure that intercountry adoption procedures were carried out in accordance with the law and the Convention?
Milica Kolakovic-Bojovic, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said that between 2015 and October 2022, 411 asylum-seeking minors left reception centres without stating where they were going and their whereabouts were still unknown. These minors could be vulnerable to various types of human rights violations. Could more information be provided about the steps taken to investigate those cases?
Ms. Kolakovic-Bojovic said the indigenous Sami people had been subjected to discriminatory policies and practices prior to the entry into force of the Convention, including the forced removal of children to institutions or foster homes and the forced resettlement of adults to labour colonies. What were the outcomes of investigations conducted by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
Introducing the report, Tormod C. Endresen, Permanent Representative of Norway to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, said no acts of enforced disappearance as defined in the Convention had been recorded or reported in Norway. Any unlawful deprivation of liberty would be investigated by the police as a criminal offence, and subsequently be brought before domestic courts.
The delegation said Norway had a comprehensive legal framework covering intercountry adoptions. Only accredited bodies could facilitate such adoptions and applicants for adoption needed to be approved by authorities. The State party had established risk-reducing measures to ensure safe adoptions, tightening document control requirements and rejecting mediation licences for eight countries.
Regarding the 411 unaccounted for asylum-seeking minors, the delegation said the police directorate had investigated the matter and found that statistics were lacking. Children who wished to leave reception centres could do so voluntarily. In 2022, the Government established a special oversight mechanism for minors in reception centres, and was now considering increasing staff in these centres and strengthening training in childcare issues.
Regarding the indigenous Sami people, Mr. Endresen said Norwegian authorities placed emphasis on acknowledging and apologising for the injustices committed as a part of the harsh assimilation process. Current policy sought to strengthen culture and languages that were weakened during the previous assimilation policy. There were also established compensation schemes for persons that had suffered due to these policies.
The delegation added that the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee's comprehensive report on the assimilation policy would be considered by Parliament in November this year. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission had provided more than 1,000 Sami persons with compensation.
In concluding remarks, Olivier de Frouville, Committee Chair, said the dialogue had been lively and constructive, with the delegation giving specific and relevant answers. The Committee would continue to contact Norway regarding developments in relevant legislation and policies. The State party and the Committee had a common goal: the full implementation of the Convention.
Mr. Endresen, in his concluding remarks, said Norway was fully committed to its rights and obligations under the Convention, and would examine how it could comply more fully with the Convention based on the Committee's concluding observations. The Committee should be commended for supporting the proper implementation of the Convention in Member States.
The delegation of Norway consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Public Security; the Directorate for Correctional Services; and the Permanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Norway at the end of its twenty-seventh session, which concludes on 4 October. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee's twenty-seventh session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Monday, 30 September at 10 a.m. to hold a meeting with States, followed by a meeting at 12 p.m. with non-governmental organizations, national human rights institutions and intergovernmental organizations.
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of Norway (CED/NOR/1).
Presentation of Report
TORMOD C. ENDRESEN, Permanent Representative of Norway to the United Nations Office at Geneva, expressed appreciation to the Committee for their work on the prevention and eradication of, and redress for enforced disappearances. Norway was a dualist country, meaning that international obligations were required to be implemented in Norwegian law to be directly applicable. The Convention was partly implemented in the Norwegian legal system by way of passive transformation, which entailed that the Parliament considered existing Norwegian law to be in accordance with the Convention. An example was the obligation under article 24(4) to ensure a right to compensation for victims of enforced disappearances. In 2019, Parliament enacted two provisions in the Penal Code on enforced disappearance. The protection from enforced disappearance was guaranteed by various parts of the legal system in Norway, some general, with others more specific to the issue of enforced disappearance.
No acts of enforced disappearance as defined in the Convention had been recorded or reported in Norway. This was also confirmed through consultations with the Norwegian Human Rights Institution, the Parliamentary Ombud's National Preventive Mechanism and civil society. Any unlawful deprivation of liberty would be investigated by the police as a criminal offence, 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.
If a case of enforced disappearance should occur, there were several ways for victims to receive compensation. The victim could take civil action and file a claim for compensation and reparation against the State. In a criminal proceeding against the perpetrator, victims may be entitled to State compensation. In addition, the Norwegian Parliament's Fair Compensation Scheme was a secondary compensation scheme, where individuals could, in cases no longer prosecutable due to limitation statutes, apply for discretionary compensation from the State. The Norwegian Government continuously worked to develop and strengthen the policies on ensuring reparation and redress for the victims of past abuses.
Regarding the indigenous Sami people and the national minorities, Norwegian authorities placed emphasis on acknowledging and apologising for the injustices committed as a part of the harsh assimilation process. The Government had disseminated knowledge on the past policy of assimilation of the Sami people and other minorities. Current policy sought to strengthen culture and languages that were weakened during the previous assimilation policy. There were also established compensation schemes for persons that had suffered due to these policies.
Following legislative changes on 1 July 2024, there was no legal basis for the use of arrest as a disciplinary measure during times of peace or war. The amendment reflected that deprivation of liberty was considered a measure of last resort. 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 were no longer a separate category under Norwegian criminal law. The changes ensured that criminal cases from the Armed Forces were handled pursuant to the same rules of procedure and procedural safeguards as other criminal cases.
Norway aspired to ensure that all children in need of institutional child welfare services received a comprehensive, predictable and adapted care and assistance service that strengthened their resources. A public committee had recently proposed 50 measures to achieve this ambition. A Government strategy emphasised the joint responsibility of various sectors to ensure that children received comprehensive help and support, and the opportunity for a good adult life.
Norway was recently scrutinised by the European Committee against Torture and received the Committee's preliminary findings in June, with the report to arrive in November or December. The Government would carefully review the report and play close attention to the findings. Norway eagerly awaited the open and constructive dialogue with the Committee.
Questions by Committee Experts
FIDELIS EDGE KANYANGOLO, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked if the State party could provide details on the nature and scale of the consultation with civil society that was undertaken during the preparation of the report? Which civil society entities were consulted? Did these include victims or those working on victim rights? What was the current state of recommendations made by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions on the strengthening of the Norwegian Human Rights Institution?
The Committee noted that Norway had no specific law that made the prohibition of enforced disappearances non-derogable. On the contrary, the State party stated that its domestic law included a principle of constitutional necessity. Could the delegation elaborate on the principle of constitutional necessity, and explain how the application of the principle in cases of severe and unprecedented crises could be reconciled with the State's obligation to provide for the non-derogability of the prohibition of enforced disappearances? Could specific examples be provided on the application of the principle in practice?
One situation in which non-State actors could easily perpetrate enforced disappearances was the context of migration which made migrants vulnerable to human traffickers. In this context, the Committee noted that in its third evaluation report on Norway in June 2022, the Council of Europe's Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings reported that Norway remained a country of destination for victims of human trafficking. Given the heightened risk of the occurrence of enforced disappearances in the context of migration, had the State party taken any measures to investigate any cases of suspected enforced disappearances perpetrated by non-State actors in the context of migration?
The Norwegian Penal Code provided that enforced disappearance was a crime against humanity. Could the delegation clarify the statement which stated that public authority orders could not excuse criminal liability, while asserting that the Penal Code had no provision which explicitly prohibited invoking public authority orders as a defence in a criminal trial?
Could the delegation provide the specific legal basis which would render a superior order entailing enforced disappearance manifestly unlawful, notwithstanding that it was purported to be issued in respect of matters of service? Could it be explained whether the State party considered that the minimum sentence of 14 days that could be imposed on a person legally liable for enforced disappearance reflected the seriousness of the crime of enforced disappearance?
MILICA KOLAKOVIĆ-BOJOVIĆ, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee was pleased to receive information on the content of articles four and five of the Norwegian Penal Code. However, from the replies, it was evident that the principle of double criminality was the main rule for exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over criminal offences, with exceptions. Were there any plans to expand the list to include enforced disappearance, from article two of the Convention? Did the provision of section six derogate the principle of double criminality based on the obligations established in the Convention or not? How were stateless people ensured a consular representative in custody? The Committee was glad to receive information that the military investigation services had been moved to the Public Prosecutor's Office. Did this mean that enforced disappearances did not fall under the competence of military authorities?
According to available data, between 2015 and October 2022, 411 asylum-seeking minors left reception centres without stating where they were going and their whereabouts were still unknown. These minors could be vulnerable to various types of human rights violations, including serious crimes such as human trafficking or enforced disappearances. Could statistics be provided on the age, sex and nationality of those children? Could more information be provided about the steps taken to investigate those cases, including the number of investigated cases, the outcome of those investigations, the status of investigations that were still ongoing, and plans for future steps in terms of investigations? Had Norway used the mechanisms of mutual legal assistance to investigate those cases? If so, what was the outcome of such cooperation?
The Committee also took note that the new guidelines for cooperation in cases of missing minors had been issued. What languages were the guidelines available in? The Committee had adopted the first general comment on enforced disappearances in the context of migration in September 2023, which contained comprehensive guidelines for States parties. Did authorities plan to incorporate those provisions into State policies regarding the investigation of cases of missing migrant children from the reception centres?
The Committee took note of the information provided regarding the efforts made to address the gross violations of human rights of the indigenous Sami people who had been subjected to discriminatory policies and practices throughout Norwegian history, prior to the entry into force of the Convention. In some cases, these policies and practices might have met the definition of enforced disappearances under the Convention, including the forced removal of children to institutions or foster homes, and the forced resettlement of adults to labour colonies.
The Committee was interested to know the outcome of the work of the two Commissions: the Investigation Commission established in 2015 and the Truth Commission established in 2018. Had they finished their work? Did their mandates allow for the investigation of cases of enforced disappearances? What kind of investigative methods did they apply in investigations? What was the role of victims and their families in the work of the two Commissions?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said no case of an act amounting to enforced disappearance had been reported to the authorities. Norway had also reached out to civil society and requested feedback on this issue. The reply back was that no report of such allegations had been received. The request had been sent to the Norwegian Human Rights Mechanism and the National Preventive Mechanism, among others, as well as 40 non-governmental organizations.
The act of enforced disappearance could not be justified by invoking Constitutional necessity. There was no written provision of law which allowed for a derogation from the Constitution. There were no court cases regarding enforced disappearances, but there were examples showing that the domestic courts abided by the principles of aiding and abetting on cases of deprivation of liberty.
The general comment on enforced disappearance in the context of migration had been a useful document in preparation for the meeting with the Committee. Norway was a clear destination country in the context of trafficking in human beings. The first Scandinavian trafficking case concerned a girl from the Czech Republic who was abducted from her home, brought to Scandinavia and forced into prostitution. Since then, police units had been focused on the vulnerability of victims and understanding their backgrounds. There were many foreign women engaged in prostitution in Norway.
There was a difference in the wording of two sections of the Penal Code, but the Norwegian Government believed the wording was consistent with Norway's obligations under the Convention. Anyone who committed a crime and fulfilled the conditions of liability described in the Penal Code would be held responsible. Since evoking an order or instruction was not mentioned as an excuse, subordinates who were ordered to contribute to enforced disappearances would be held responsible.
There was a rule in the Penal Code which stated that unless something else was stipulated, the minimum sentence for enforced disappearance was 14 days. Norway was working to abolish specified minimum sentences which could have unfortunate side effects. Only a few provisions in the Penal Code stipulated specific minimum sentences. Enforced disappearance was a crime of the most serious nature. In light of this, a penalty of up to 15 years was stipulated, or 20 years for aggravating circumstances. This showed that it was considered a serious crime in Norway.
All criminal offences were investigated by the police and the Public Prosecutor had the ability to instigate supervised investigations. In a few offences, the military investigators were called on to investigate. It was important to note that they were considered to be members of the police while investigating, and they were not permitted to investigate cases of enforced disappearances.
Police had been criticised for the lack of investigations and answers regarding the 411 minors. Following this, the police directorate had looked into the matter and found that statistics were lacking. There were unclear procedures around when to register a person as missing and uncertainty around follow-up. There had been many boys arriving from Afghanistan in 2015 and 2016 with failed asylum applications, who would be sent back to their country when they turned 18. Around that time, they left the reception centres, but there was no suggestion that this was a result of enforced disappearances.
Steps had been taken to clarify routines. Police introduced new statistics in criminal registers for these cases and 13 cases had been registered as minors missing from reception centres. In most cases, a formal investigation was not opened following initial fact-checking. Research had suggested that many of the children who had left Norway ended up in other countries in poor conditions, not because of enforced disappearances, but rather due to their vulnerable positions as migrants on the move. New guidelines were being developed and would come into force for new cases.
There were several official reports regarding assimilation policies that affected indigenous peoples and national minorities. When it came to the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, the comprehensive report on the assimilation policy would be considered by Parliament in November this year.
Questions by Committee Experts
FIDELIS EDGE KANYANGOLO, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked if there were any circumstances where Norwegian law permitted derogation, or could this not happen? Could clarification on the reference to involuntary disappearance be provided? The answer on minimum sentences was appreciated. What was the current state of the process of the removal of minimum sentences? Would Norway consider implementing a mechanism for interstate communication on enforced disappearances? Mr. Edge Kanyangolo thanked Norway for the responses which had been clear and informative and provided a clear explanation.
MILICA KOLAKOVIĆ-BOJOVIĆ, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked who was in charge of conducting individual assessments on victims of human trafficking? Was there a standardised methodology or tools for conducting such assessments? Were there particular reasons for the decision not to introduce a specific minimum penalty for crimes of enforced disappearance? Regarding the children who had left Norway, could the delegation provide more information on the mechanism used to trace these children? The Committee was glad to receive additional information on the work of the two Commissions. What was the consequent action of the Prosecutor's Service regarding findings on the removal of Roma children?
A Committee Expert said reference was made to section 22 of the Military Justice Code which established a minimum of 14 days for crimes of enforced disappearances. When members of the armed forces were prosecuted, was this under the Military Justice Code or the Civilian Code? When minors left reception centres at the age of 16 or 17, what did this mean for them practically? Had they been abandoned by the State? Was there oversight as to what happened to them next? Reference had been made to an assimilation policy aimed at indigenous peoples and national minorities. The concept of assimilation implied failure to uphold the culture of indigenous peoples. What was the overall vision of the Government of Norway with regard to assimilation?
An Expert said Norway was a place where criminals wanted to serve out their sentences, given the way people were treated in penitentiaries and places of detention. The minimum sentence was 14 days; what would the maximum sentence be for a case of enforced disappearance, particularly if the person was tortured and/or had died? Was it true that the maximum sentence in Norway was 25 years, even if the person received a life sentence?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Norway was no longer pursuing an assimilation policy towards indigenous peoples. This was a thing of the past, and the State was working towards embracing and strengthening Sami culture more fully. It would never be strictly necessary to derogate from the prohibition of enforced disappearance. The Penal Code contained a general provision regulating attempts. Any person who attempted to commit an offense which was punishable by more than one year would be penalised.
The Penal Code stated the minimum sentence for any crime was 14 days. There were only a few situations where minimum sentences applied. A Commission had suggested that the minimum sentence should be abolished. In a few cases, minimum sentences might lead to harsher penalties than were reasonable. There was also a concern that some aggravators could be found not guilty, in instances where the minimum sentence was considered too much for the specific offense. This was an ongoing discussion. Norway had not considered imposing a specific minimum sentence for enforced disappearances. The maximum sentence for enforced disappearance was 15 years, but if the crime was aggravated it was 21 years, and if it was a crime against humanity, the maximum sentence was 30 years.
Civil society was consulted when it came to State reports and on legislation. Everyone was invited to consult on legislation; the whole of Norwegian society was able to be involved in the legislation process.
There was no central authority tasked with identifying victims of trafficking in Norway. The police and social workers were asked to look for signs that someone might be a victim of trafficking, and if so, they were referred to civil society organizations by the Government. This informal system worked in some ways, but there were weaknesses to it as well.
Children who chose to leave reception centres could do so; it was voluntary to stay. While at the centres they were under protection from the State, and when they left, they were no longer under that care. Norway could not ask other countries to return the children to Norway if they did not wish to be there. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission had provided more than 1,000 Sami persons with compensation. A report stated that more than 21,000 Romani persons had received compensation since 2015. The crime of enforced disappearance was solely governed by the Penal Code, not the Military Penal Code. It was difficult to assess the situation of children who left reception centres. Many had ended up in Norway without a clear intention of going there.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission assessed previous policies and measures relating to the Sami indigenous peoples. It analysed the repercussions of those policies and considered measures promoting reconciliation. Sami persons and civil society representatives were represented in the Commission. Personal stories from 760 affected people had been shared with the Commission.
Questions by Committee Experts
MILICA KOLAKOVIC-BOJOVIC, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said Norwegian authorities were continuing to expel migrants and refugees to their home countries, despite evidence that they could be subjected to human rights violations. For example, Norway had expelled an Afghanistan citizen to his home country, where he was subsequently killed. What measures were in place to align legislation on expulsions with the Convention? Were screenings to identify whether persons were victims of trafficking carried out? Decisions on expulsion could be appealed within three weeks of the decision, but there was no automatic suspensive effect on expulsions after appeals were lodged. Who decided on whether suspensions were provided, and what was the deadline for this decision?
The State party had several registers on various crimes. How did the State party ensure that the information contained in these registers allowed for differentiation between enforced disappearance and other crimes? Were there plans to establish a register of disappeared persons?
There were instances where authorities did not document when detainees were released from holding cells in district courts or prisons. What monitoring of detentions was carried out? Could persons with legitimate interests receive information about the whereabouts of detainees? Police could decide not to notify family members of arrested persons of the arrest if there were "special circumstances". What were these circumstances? Could such decisions be appealed? What sanctions were issued for failing to report deprivations of liberty?
FIDELIS EDGE KANYANGOLO, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the State party had issued a formal apology to the Romani for past abuses. It had also established a trust fund for the benefit of these people. This was highly appreciated. How were the Romani people involved in processes that led to the establishment of the Trust Fund and procedures for its use? Which communities had received compensation? What other forms of reparation were provided? Was the State party working to establish a comprehensive reparation scheme that anticipated the future occurrence of enforced disappearance?
Norwegian domestic law defined persons as victims depending on the degree to which they were affected by a crime. This was a narrower definition than that of the Convention and could potentially exclude some persons from qualifying as victims. Were there clear legal standards for determining the degree of effect of a crime? How was compensation for enforced disappearance assessed? Why was damage of property not covered in legislation on compensation? The State party did not have specific laws guaranteeing the right to truth for victims of enforced disappearance. How would the State party comply with its obligations under the Convention in this regard?
According to the Norwegian Penal Code, persons who removed minors from a care facility or a person who had a responsibility of care were subject to a fine or imprisonment for up to two years. Were there cases where persons who had removed children had been punished? Was there a procedure for registering disappearances of minors from asylum centres? What were the root causes of minors leaving reception centres? How was the State party preventing the abduction of minors who left reception centres? What progress had been made in reviewing police guidelines regarding minors who left reception centres?
The State party had taken positive steps to recognise and prevent illegal adoptions, including the establishment of a dedicated adoption investigation committee. What progress had been made in investigations carried out by the committee? How was the State party strengthening document control procedures and working to ensure that intercountry adoption procedures were carried out in accordance with the law and the Convention?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the State party fulfilled many of the obligations on non-refoulement listed in the Committee's general comment on enforced disappearance in the context of migration. Immigration office staff carefully assessed each asylum application individually. In some exceptional cases, persons had lodged claims that they had experienced persecution upon return to their home country. The Government considered such appeals and if the claims were found to be valid, expulsions were revoked. Decisions on expulsion could be appealed within three weeks. If appeals or suspension requests were rejected, cases could be brought before the courts.
The police had a unified register of missing persons. A new instruction had been issued on the use of police detention, which outlined who was responsible for recording detentions. The instruction called for everything that happened to the detainee to be recorded.
Human rights were included in education from kindergarten level up to university level, as well as in training for the armed forces and the police. Education for children addressed issues including combatting racism and discrimination, and respecting human dignity. Extensive training was provided to prison staff on preventing the use of torture and the humane use of isolation. International human rights conventions were a major part of training for judges.
Representatives of the Romani people were involved in a reference group that developed the State report on compensation for the group. Special compensation schemes for the Sami and Tartar people had been established so that people who had obsolete compensation claims under the general compensation scheme had the opportunity to receive compensation.
If a person was wrongfully deprived of liberty, they had the right to compensation under State legislation. Victims could file a claim under the State's general compensation scheme. Victims could obtain compensation even in cases where the perpetrator was unknown. There were also compensation schemes in different municipalities available to victims.
The closest relatives of persons detained in the health sector were provided by law with the right to information on the detained person, regardless of the wishes of the detainee. However, in the criminal justice system, closest relatives were only notified when the detainee wished it. Norway was sustaining its interpretive declaration regarding article 20 of the Convention. The right to information was only restricted when it was strictly necessary. There was no right to truth in Norwegian law, but public authorities were required to establish conditions for open and enlightened discourse, including regarding past abuses.
There was no definition of a victim within the Criminal Procedural Act. Public authorities used discretionary power to determine aggrieved and injured parties according to the State's international obligations.
Norway had a comprehensive legal framework covering intercountry adoptions. Only accredited bodies could facilitate such adoptions and applicants for adoption needed to be approved by authorities. The adoption investigation committee was studying whether there had been illegal intercountry adoptions and would produce a report on the issue by the end of 2025. The State party had established risk-reducing measures to ensure safe adoptions, including tightening document control requirements and rejecting the mediation license for eight countries.
Questions by Committee Experts
MILICA KOLAKOVIC-BOJOVIC, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about the possibility of using testimonies collected by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to initiate investigations into past human rights violations. What information was used by staff assessing the expulsion of asylum seekers? How did the State party ensure that the fundamental rights of persons deprived of liberty were guaranteed in conflict situations? Did the State party ensure that all persons were held in officially recognised detention centres overseas and that all detainees had the right to appeal their detention in court?
The Committee welcomed that human rights protection was an element of curricula in kindergartens, schools, universities and training centres for police, the armed forces and judges. Were there plans to introduce specific training on the Convention, including for immigration officials?
Could compensation claims be submitted in criminal proceedings? Were victims entitled to legal aid in civil proceedings involving compensation? What was the average duration of civil compensation proceedings and what was the average amount granted? Authorities' discretionary powers to determine who were victims and the minimum duration of sentences appeared to be too broad. Were there plans to limit these using legal means to prevent violations of the Convention?
FIDELIS EDGE KANYANGOLO, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked whether there was a law that provided for non-monetary compensation for victims. What oversight was provided for reception centres for asylum seekers? Were inspections more frequent than those of regular care centres?
A Committee Expert asked whether registers of missing and detained persons were interlinked so persons trying to find their relatives could obtain information.
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chair, said safeguards provided by article 17 of the Convention were applicable in international armed conflict. What was the purpose of the State party's reservation to this article?
A Committee Expert asked about the requisites for victims of enforced disappearance to be eligible for compensation.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported all relevant information related to criminal acts against the Sami people to the police. Current policy on national minorities sought to build up culture and languages. Authorities had issued apologies for actions committed, erected memorials, and established a museum for the Romani population. State reports into violations were also a part of the reconciliation process.
A specialised body made visits to countries to gather information on risks to asylum seekers subject to expulsion procedures to ensure their safety. There were no plans to lift Norway's reservation to article 17 of the Convention concerning detention in conflict situations. The reservation related to the fact that deprivation of liberty during armed conflict was not currently regulated in formal Norwegian law. In Norway, the rules concerning deprivation of liberty during armed conflict were set out in the Norwegian Armed Forces' Manual, which reflected relevant international instruments. Detention of civilians was only carried out when necessary. Safeguards were in place to prevent enforced disappearances in conflict situations. Prisoners of war were allowed to communicate with the outside world unless there were compelling reasons to prevent them from doing so. Opposing forces were informed of the location of detained combatants.
Training centres for the police and armed forces provided basic training on human rights, incorporating the fundamental elements of international human rights treaties.
Claims for damages could be assessed in criminal cases. If claims were not assessed in such cases, they could be filed with the criminal compensation authority. Persons had the right to legal assistance in civil cases concerning compensation for violent crimes or personal injury. It took around 90 days for compensation for violent crimes to be paid out.
Decisions by public administrative bodies were not fully discretionary and could be appealed in higher courts.
In 2022, the Government established a special oversight mechanism for minors in reception centres. It had carried out inspections revealing room for improvement in some areas. The Government was now considering increasing staff in these centres and strengthening training in childcare issues as a result of these inspections.
The main police registries were interconnected nationally, so it was possible for police to gain information on arrests occurring in different districts.
Closing Remarks
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chair, said the dialogue had been lively and constructive, with the delegation giving specific and relevant answers. The dialogue was just one part of the Committee's cooperation with Norway - it would continue to contact the State party regarding developments in relevant legislation and policies. Exchanges with States parties were governed by a spirit of cooperation. States parties and the Committee had a common goal: the full implementation of the Convention.
TORMOD C. ENDRESEN, Permanent Representative of Norway to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, said the dialogue had been interesting and rewarding. Norway was fully committed to its rights and obligations under the Convention, and would examine how it could comply more fully with the Convention based on the Committee's concluding observations. Mr. Endresen said that he generally worked in the Human Rights Council, where human rights were often politicised. It was refreshing to participate in the dialogue, which demonstrated that human rights were a body of law. The Committee should be commended for supporting the proper implementation of the Convention in Member States.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media; not an official record.
English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
