Advance Edited Version
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A ADVANCE EDITED Distr. VERSION GENERAL A/HRC/7/4/Add.2 11 October 2007 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Seventh regular session Item 3 of the agenda PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION Addendum MISSION TO NORWAY* * The summary is being circulated in all official languages. The report, contained in the annex to the summary, and its appendix are being circulated in the language of submission only. A/HRC/7/4/Add.2 page 2 Summary The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited Norway from 27 April to 2 May 2007 at the invitation of the Government. The Working Group travelled to Oslo, Stavanger and Tromsø, where it held meetings with Government authorities and civil society representatives. It visited 12 detention facilities, including prisons with convicted and pretrial detainees, police stations, an immigration detention centre, a psychiatric hospital and an adolescent psychiatry facility. The Working Group was able to interview in private 138 detainees chosen at random. The present report outlines the different institutions and laws relating to deprivation of liberty and human rights in the context of criminal, police, immigration and mental health-care law. The Working Group highlights the fullest cooperation of the Government at all levels and spheres. The Working Group commends the Government of Norway for its susceptibility to recommendations from internal and international control bodies and courts. The Working Group received clear indications that the Government would give full consideration to its recommendations contained in the present report. In the report, the Working Group furthermore notes numerous best practices in the well-functioning criminal justice and penitentiary systems in Norway which feature checks and balances between independent institutions safeguarding against arbitrary detention and well-trained and professional prison staff. The legal aid scheme for the defence counsel is exemplary. The Working Group recognizes that the Government is currently addressing the “waiting list” phenomenon, which refers to about 2,000 convicted individuals who are waiting to serve their prison terms. It further mentions the traditionally strong role of police which, however, has served the Norwegian society well. The Working Group lauds the Government for its policy to avoid taking juveniles between the age of 15 and 18 into custody. At present, only eight remain in detention. The number of detained aliens is also low. The Working Group appreciates the fact that involuntary confinement in psychiatric institutions is the exception and patients are able to effectively challenge the compulsory admittance decision before an independent control commission and in the courts of law. The Working Group notes the frequency of use of partial or total isolation during remand and after sentencing in Norway. The prosecuting authorities appear to dominate the regime of remand detention during the crucial investigation phase. Statistics reveal that courts reject requests for remand and the imposition of restrictions only in rare cases, either because the prosecuting authorities only submit well-founded applications or the judiciary is exercising limited control. The difficulties for prisoners in successfully challenging decisions on isolation taken by correctional service authorities after sentencing are also mentioned. The Working Group also raises the issue of preventive detention, which is imposed when a sentence for a specific prison term is considered to be insufficient to protect society from an offender convicted for a serious (violent) crime. The Working Group notes the uncertainty for A/HRC/7/4/Add.2 page 3 detainees concerning release dates and that preventive detention could potentially amount to indefinite detention. It also appears to be difficult for the detainees in preventive detention to have a decision to their detriment reversed in court since the judiciary relies on the assessment by the correctional services. The Working Group notes that the “infoflyt” (“information flow”) national database was created to raise the quality of information on prison inmates for the purposes of ensuring prison security, preventing escapes, and enhancing the protection of society. Currently about 50 prison inmates are subjected to this system. This database, which is accessible only to high-ranking officials within the correctional services, prison governors and the national police directorate, but not to the prison inmates, their defence lawyers or courts. The Working Group argues that access to information is vital for inmates wishing to submit applications for early release or termination of a preventive detention term. The Working Group finally refers to conflicts of competence between correctional service and mental health-care authorities regarding detainees requiring psychiatric treatment. There is no body competent to take the final decision on whether the person concerned should be transferred from a prison to a psychiatric hospital or vice versa, or stay in the respective detention facility if psychiatric doctors and correctional service authorities disagree. On the basis of its findings, the Working Group makes recommendations to the Government in the areas of restrictions imposed in addition to deprivation of liberty, including the creation of a new system for challenging decisions taken by correctional service authorities, and related to preventive detention. It encourages the Government to monitor the development of the “infoflyt” database and to improve it, if necessary. Finally, it invites the Government to resolve conflicts of competence between correctional service authorities and psychiatric institutions. A/HRC/7/4/Add.2 page 4 Annex REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION ON ITS MISSION TO NORWAY (22 APRIL-2 MAY 2007) CONTENTS Paragraphs Page I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 - 2 6 II. PROGRAMME OF THE VISIT ....................................................... 3 - 4 6 III. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK .......................... 5 - 57 7 A. Institutional framework ........................................................... 5 - 16 7 1. Political system ................................................................ 5 7 2. Judiciary ........................................................................... 6 - 7 7 3. National Police and the prosecution ................................ 8 - 11 7 4. Penitentiary system .......................................................... 12 - 15 8 5. Other detention facilities .................................................. 16 8 B. Legal framework of detention ................................................. 17 - 57 9 1. International human rights treaty obligations .................. 17 9 2. Criminal procedure .......................................................... 18 - 41 9 3. Detention pursuant to the Police Act ............................... 42 13 4. Juvenile justice ................................................................. 43 - 44 13 5. Women in detention ......................................................... 45 - 46 13 6. Detention of aliens ........................................................... 47 - 53 14 7. Deprivation of liberty on grounds of mental health ................................................................................ 54 - 57 15 IV. POSITIVE ASPECTS ....................................................................... 58 - 72 16 A. Cooperation of the Government .............................................. 58 - 59 16 B. Well-functioning criminal justice and penitentiary systems ..................................................................................... 60 - 68 16 C. Juvenile justice ......................................................................... 69 - 70 18 D. Low number of detained aliens ................................................ 71 18 E. Efficient control of committal to psychiatric institutions ................................................................................ 72 19 A/HRC/7/4/Add.2 page 5 CONTENTS (continued) Paragraphs Page V. ISSUES OF CONCERN .................................................................... 73 - 94 19 A. Detention within the criminal justice context .......................... 73 - 90 19 1. Isolation in pretrial detention and during imprisonment ................................................................... 73 - 78 19 2. Preventive detention ........................................................ 79 - 82 21 3. “Infoflyt” system ............................................................. 83 - 90 21 B. Detention outside the criminal justice context ........................ 91 - 94 23 VI. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 95 - 97 24 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 98 24 Appendix Detention facilities visited ................................................................................................ 26 A/HRC/7/4/Add.2 page 6 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which was established pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1991/42 and whose mandate was assumed by the Human Rights Council by its decision 1/102 and extended by resolution 6/4, visited Norway from 22 April to