CAT/C/63/D/678/2015
2.7
On 21 May 2012, the complainant submitted a claim to the Norwegian Civil Affairs
Authority for non-pecuniary damages, subsequent to his criminal prosecution. On 15
January 2014 the Authority rejected his claim, concluding that “the prosecution was no
more invasive that he had to expect, considering the short period of time for which he was
detained and his suspicion-arousing and volatile behaviour”.
2.8
The complainant submits that since the decision of the Director General of Public
Prosecutions cannot be reviewed by other national authorities, 10 he has exhausted all
available and effective domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that his 15-hour stay in solitary confinement in the police
station, without any medical care, and the beatings by the police officers, amount to
inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the Convention.
3.2
He claims that the failure by the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police
Affairs to investigate his complaint is contrary to article 12 of the Convention. He
maintains that the burden of proof is on the State party to show that injuries that occurred
during the police custody could have been due to circumstances for which the State party
bears no responsibility. He claims that the State party did not provide any plausible
explanation with respect to the physical injuries, which were not recorded upon his arrest
but were confirmed upon his release from custody in the medical report. He also claims that
the fact that the State party did not secure sufficient evidence after the incident, for example
by questioning the custody officers, also contributed to a violation of article 12 of the
Convention.
3.3
The complainant asserts that there is a violation of articles 10 and 11 of the
Convention because the education, information, instructions and arrangements in place are
not sufficient to treat persons with mental problems adequately when arrested and held in
detention.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
In a note verbale dated 6 July 2015, the State party submitted its observations on
admissibility of the complaint. The State party claims that the complaint is inadmissible
because the complainant is not a victim under article 22 (1) of the Convention with respect
to articles 10 and 11. The State party argues that neither article 10 nor article 11 provides
the complainant with individual rights. In its opinion, the wording of article 10 shows that
the provision is aimed at the relationship between the Government and personnel
responsible for persons who have been deprived of their liberty, and not the relationship
between the Government and each individual detainee. Similarly, article 11 does not govern
the direct relationship between the Government on the one hand, and individual detainees
on the other. Instead, the wording of article 11 shows that the provision imposes a general
obligation on the State towards society at large. While admitting that the obligations
contained in articles 10 and 11 represent important means for preventing cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment in general within a State party, the Government observes that a
failure by the State party to comply with the said article will not have a direct effect on
individuals who are detained. This potential effect for individual detainees is, in the State
party’s opinion, too consequential and indirect to constitute a subjective right for the
complainant in the present case.
4.2
Moreover, the State party claims that the complaint is also inadmissible because the
same matter has been examined by the European Court of Human Rights. In the State
party’s opinion, the complaint to the European Court of Human Rights concerned the
“same matter”, and the same matter has been “examined” by the European Court of Human
Rights. The State party submits that the European Court of Human Rights could not have
declared the complaint inadmissible on any of the following grounds: failure by the
complainant to comply with the six-month deadline for filing a complaint; the case being
10
In the decision of the Director General, it is stated that the decision cannot be appealed, but that the
complainant has the right to institute a private prosecution of the case.
3