CAT/C/NOR/CO/8
8.
While taking note of the State party’s explanation, the Committee invites the
State party to reconsider amending its current definition of torture in domestic
legislation, in order to align it fully with the definition contained in article 1 of the
Convention. The Committee draws the State party’s attention to its general comment
No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2, in which it states that serious
discrepancies between the Convention’s definition and that incorporated into
domestic law create actual or potential loopholes for impunity.
Incorporation of torture into domestic legislation
9.
The Committee regrets that the State party continues to maintain its position
regarding the specific incorporation of the provisions of the Convention into domestic law
(art. 2).
10.
The Committee reiterates its recommendation (see CAT/C/NOR/CO/6-7,
para. 6) that the State party further consider incorporating all provisions of the
Convention into domestic law in order to allow it to be directly invoked in court.
Fundamental legal safeguards
11.
The Committee is concerned that persons deprived of their liberty in police
detention facilities, in particular pretrial detainees, may not enjoy all the fundamental legal
safeguards from the very outset of their detention, such as being informed of their right to
lodge complaints regarding their treatment and the conditions of detention, with regard to
the actual complaints procedure as well as access to means-tested legal aid (arts. 2, 11, 12,
13 and 16).
12.
The State party should ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are
afforded in law and in practice all fundamental legal safeguards from the very outset
of their detention, in accordance with international standards, including being
informed of their rights, receiving at their request a medical examination preferably
by a doctor of their own choice, having access to a lawyer or free legal aid in all cases
required by the interests of justice, particularly during investigation and questioning,
being informed of their right to lodge complaints and about the actual complaints
procedure, and being brought before a judge within 48 hours of their apprehension.
Prolonged detention in police cells
13.
While noting the reduction in the number of breaches, the Committee reiterates its
concern about the continued use of police detention cells for pretrial detention beyond the
48-hour limit prescribed by law, and the 24-hour limit with regard to minors, which may
lead to the isolation by default of detained persons owing to the lack of sufficient capacity
in prisons for their accommodation. It is also concerned at conditions of detention in certain
police facilities that do not meet international standards as was reported with regard to
Bergen police headquarters, where cells do not have windows, no personal hygiene
products or use of showers is provided to inmates and no outdoor exercise exists (arts. 2, 11
and 16).
14.
The Committee reiterates its recommendation (see CAT/C/NOR/CO/6-7,
para. 10) that the State party should abolish the use of police detention cells beyond
the 48-hour term stipulated in law. It should implement rigorously the new guidelines
concerning the use of police custody facilities drawn up in July 2015 by the National
Police Directorate with a view to reduce to a minimum the number of persons who
spend more than 48 hours in police custody after being arrested. The pretrial
detention of minors should be used as a measure of last resort, should follow clear
guidelines and no children should be held in police facilities beyond the 24-hour limit
without a court hearing, as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act, and alternative
measures to police detention should be sought. The State party should expand or
refurbish existing police station facilities with inadequate conditions and transfer all
pretrial detainees to prison facilities after the period prescribed by law.
3