CAT/C/63/D/678/2015
his detention, he requested medical treatment for his mental illness. 3 He did not receive any
such treatment, despite the fact that the police officers perceived him to be mentally ill,
which was evidenced by the entries in the police log. At night when he was in his cell, he
was beaten by three unknown police officers, 4 causing him physical injuries (swelling and a
haematoma near his left eye, a small abrasion on his left cheek, a haematoma on his left
shoulder, and a sore scalp due to pulled hair). On 9 November 2006, 15 hours after his
arrest, he was released, pending official charges. Upon release, he visited an emergency
medical service to receive medical assistance for his injuries. 5 He claims that that
experience was particularly traumatizing for him because he had previously been a victim
of police violence in Norway, in 2005.6
2.2
On 15 November 2006, the complainant’s counsel requested information about his
detention and the names of the custody officers on duty on the dates in question. 7 On 7
January 2008, during the main hearing, the complainant explained that he had been
subjected to violence while in custody. 8
2.3
On 21 April 2008, the complainant was acquitted by Oslo City Court for the
8 November 2006 incident on the grounds that he lacked sanity. 9
2.4
On 1 November 2011, the complainant reported the beating to the Norwegian
Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs. On 17 April 2012 the Bureau decided to not
prosecute the police officers, because it found that “it would be unlikely that an
investigation based on the available information would produce evidence that he has been a
victim of a criminal offence”. It also found that it was likely that the injuries sustained by
the complainant were connected to the use of force described in the police report of the
incident. The Bureau took into consideration the fact that the complaint had been filed five
years after the incident, that the complainant’s information about the use of force in the
holding cell was vague, and that the psychiatric assessment had concluded that there was
doubt about whether the complainant was of sound mind at the time of his arrest, which
affected the credibility of his statement regarding the use of force against him.
2.5
On 26 April 2012, the complainant submitted a preliminary appeal, and on 30 May
2012 a full appeal, to the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs, which
forwarded it for a decision to the Director General of Public Prosecutions. On 17 July 2012,
the Director General upheld the Bureau’s decision, stating that it “agrees with the Bureau
on all material points”.
2.6
On 17 July 2010, the complainant applied to the European Court of Human Rights.
His application was declared inadmissible under articles 34 and 35 of the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on
Human Rights), by a single-judge decision on 29 November 2012.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
In his interview with the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs, on 1 November
2011, the complainant stated that he had asked the police to take him to hospital because he felt
stressed, and asked again to be taken to hospital after having been put in his cell.
The complainant had not seen these police officers before, and they were not the ones who initially
arrested him.
Copies of medical reports are provided. They contain his allegations of the beatings and a description
of his injuries.
The complainant claims that he developed post-traumatic stress disorder after his arrest on 13 May
2005 for having lit a fire in a park. He alleges that during his arrest he was thrown to the ground and
hit his head on a rock, after which he was handcuffed and stepped on. He reported that incident on the
same day to the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs, however the Bureau
decided, on 26 May 2006, not to prosecute the officers. He appealed against the Bureau’s decision,
but that appeal was also denied, by the Director General of Public Prosecutions, on 8 August 2006.
A copy of the counsel’s letter is provided. It only requests documents related to the detention, and
names of officers. No information regarding possible ill-treatment is included in the letter.
No further details on this were provided in the original complaint.
The psychiatric assessment of the complainant made on 11 February 2008 found him to be
“psychotic” and not fit to stand trial. In the assessment, it is stated that the complainant “appears to
have paranoid ideas, somatoform delusions and possible hallucinosis of a more sporadic nature”.