THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN NORWAY
By High Court Judge Sverre Erik Jebens,
Frostating High Court, Trondheim
A. Introduction
This article is dealing with the Norwegian criminal procedure law and how it responds to the requirement of fair trial. At the International Symposium on the Right to a Fair Trial, which was arranged in Heidelberg from the 30th of January to the 3rd of February 1996, judge Peter Garde presented a comprehensive paper, answering the questions in the questionnaire with respect to Denmark. In many fields the Norwegian provisions on criminal procedure law are rather similar to the Danish rules. There are, however, differences with regard to a few of the main principles, as well as on several specific rules of importance.
It should be noted that the main differences between the Nordic countries in the fields of civil and criminal procedure law exist between Denmark and Norway on the one side and Sweden and Finland on the other. In the latter countries there are less oral proceedings in civil cases and less use of lay participants than in Denmark and Norway.
The purpose of this article is partly to present an outline of the principles on which the Norwegian criminal procedure law is founded(1). Particular stress will be laid on a comparison between the Norwegian and Danish rules on questions where they differ significantly from each other. Finally, the article will deal with some subjects that have drawn special attention in Norway, with respect to the right to a fair trial.
B. Some Main Principles in Norwegian Criminal Procedure Law
Norway has a written constitution, which dates from 1814. Some basic legal safeguards are expressed directly in the constitution. The principle that no one can be punished unless there exists a legal authority that is applicable in the actual case is laid down in 96. Criminal laws, as well as civil laws, cannot be given retroactive effect (97). Penalty can be imposed only by the decision of a court of law (96). An important exception to the latter principle, however, is that the police can give the accused person the option of a fine.
The Criminal Procedure Act, which was passed in 1981, replaced the Criminal
Procedure Act of 1887.(2) It offered a general
revision of all parts of the procedure in criminal cases, but no major
changes. Later revisions have, however, included some questions of importance.(3)
The Norwegian criminal procedure system is based on several main principles. Some of these are codified, while others are unwritten.
One main principle is the accusatorial system, which is essentially applied in Norwegian criminal procedure. Norway has no strict adversarial system, like the one which is practised in the common law countries. The court therefore has a responsibility to see that the relevant evidence is being brought before it. To ensure this, the court can call witnesses by its own decision ( 294).
The person charged has a right to receive notification on the charges against him and to be present in court at all stages of the case, in order to defend himself. This includes the preliminary period - if questions on remand in custody are to be decided upon, the main hearing and at the court's handling of an appeal. The principle of hearing both sides in a case is expressed in several provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act.
A person charged is presumed innocent until he is eventually proven guilty in court. Many of the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act are based on the presumption of innocence. Detention in custody requires that justified suspicion is assumed. A person charged is to be convicted only if guilt beyond reasonable doubt is proved.
Criminal cases are held in public, unless otherwise determined in law or by a decision of the court, according to law. This principle is laid down in the Courts of Justice Act 124.
The main hearing is based on oral proceedings. Written pleadings cannot be used at the main hearing of a criminal case. This is expressed in 278 in the Criminal Procedure Act.
One important principle is that the evidence in a criminal case should be produced directly before the court. Witnesses therefore are obliged to testify at the main hearing ( 296). Although the Criminal Procedure Act does not prohibit hearsay evidence, such evidence is regarded as less reliable than testimony from the witness itself. Therefore, both parties in a criminal case call witnesses to appear at the trial.
The Norwegian criminal procedure system is based on the participation of laymen. They either participate as lay accessors in mixed courts or as members of juries.
Another important source of law, besides the Criminal Procedure Act, is the Prosecution Instructions, which were passed in 1985. They are largely based on the Criminal Procedure Act of 1981 and contain detailed rules on the police investigation and the prosecuting authority.
C. The Impact of the European Convention on Norwegian Criminal Procedure Law
It could hardly be claimed that the Criminal Procedure Act was strongly influenced by the European Convention on Human Rights when it was passed in 1981. In fact, the Convention is seldom mentioned in the bill and not discussed at all. One reason for this may be that it was regarded as impossible that the Criminal Procedure Act could be in any conflict with human rights. Another reason is probably that the European Convention was not considered as important in 1981 as it is today. Only a relatively small number of cases had been brought before the European Court of Human Rights, and the impact of the Convention on national legislation and practise was modest.(4)
Since the beginning of this decade however, the Norwegian Supreme Court has handled many cases regarding the requirements in the European Human Rights Convention and its impact on the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Law. Some of the cases will be discussed below. During the last five years the European Convention has also had a strong influence on deliberations regarding the appeal system in criminal cases. These discussions led to a reform of the Criminal Procedure Act in 1993.(5)
The European Convention on Human Rights was ratified by Norway in 1952 and went into force in 1953. Conventions are however not applicable in Norwegian law in the same way as a national law. Due to the dualistic system, conventions must be transformed into national law in order to have a direct effect. According to section 4 in the Criminal Procedure Act however, "the provisions of the act should be applied only with the limitations recognized in international law". This provision in fact incorporates international law in the Norwegian Criminal Procedure law. Still, the Norwegian Supreme Court has been reluctant to accept the direct application of the Convention. Instead, it has considered the European Convention on human rights as an important argument when interpreting the Criminal Procedure Act.
The Norwegian government decided in 1989 that it should be examined if and how international human rights could be expressed directly in Norwegian law codification. In a paper presented in 1993, a specialist group found that the European Convention and the two UN-Conventions of 1966, concerning respectively civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, should be incorporated in Norwegian law.(6)
It is expected that the Norwegian Government will place a bill on this before the Norwegian Parliament during the summer of 1996. Through this, the European Convention on Human Rights will have the same internal status as an ordinary Norwegian act.
In the following, I will discuss some of the main questions that are raised in the questionnaire. I will mostly concentrate on those parts of criminal procedure where there is a significant difference between the Danish and the Norwegian rules, and avoid commenting on those parts where the differences are only slight or non-existing. The questions will be handled in the same order as in the questionnaire.
D. Treatment During Detention Prior to and During Trial
1. Protection from Degrading Treatment
The Norwegian Constitution explicitly protects detained persons from torture, as distinct from the Danish Constitution. In 96 the Norwegian Constitution lays down that "painful examination" ought not to be used. This rule implies that all kinds of ill-treatment of a detained person are forbidden.
The Criminal Procedure Act prevents the use of promises, wrong information, threats or force against the suspect during the examination (92). These provisions apply to the court itself, as well as the parties. Furthermore, the Prosecution Instructions contain provisions that prevent the police from using such methods during the period of investigation (8-2).
2. The Right of the Accused Person to Remain Silent
The Criminal Procedure Act protects a person charged who refuses to testify against himself. The suspect has the right to remain silent during the criminal investigation. The court is obliged to inform him about this right (232). These rules are also expressed in the Prosecution Instructions ( 8-1).
At the main trial the accused has no obligation to testify against himself, and the judge ought to inform him about this. These rules are laid down in the general provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act (90).
However, if a person charged has remained silent during the police interrogation or used his right not to testify at the main hearing, this can be used against him at the trial. It depends on the circumstances what importance the lack of testimony from the accused is to have for the outcome of the case. This is in fact a consequence of the principle of the free assessment of evidence. It implies that the court has to take all evidence presented during the main trial into consideration when deciding upon the case and to assess it , unbound by formal limitations. The principle is applied both in civil and criminal cases.
E. Notice
1. Remand in Custody
The Constitution provides, in 99, that nobody ought to be detained in custody, unless it is "authorized by law, and according to procedures established by law". The Norwegian Constitution, as distinct from the Danish Constitution, does not contain any rules as to how long an accused person can be detained before he must be charged for a criminal offence and brought before a judge. The courts' control on detention is based on the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act.
Whereas the 24 hour rule in 71 of the Danish Constitution is considered an absolute time limit for the right of the police to keep a person detained without charging him and bringing him before a court, the rules in the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act are less precise. In 183 it is laid down that a person detained in custody must be brought before the court as soon as possible, and, if practicable, on the day following the arrest. If a person detained in custody does not appear in court within a day after the arrest, the reason for this must be set down in the court's decision ( 183).
These rules will hardly lead to a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Problems arise however, due to the Norwegian holidays, which often follow one after another, and the fact that the courts do not handle even cases on remand in custody on such days. According to 149 of the Courts of Justice Act, the time limit before the detained person must appear in court is automatically prolonged until the next working-day if it expires on a holiday or another red-letter day. Due to these circumstances, as much as one week can pass, at worst, before the detained person is brought before the court.
In 1991 the Norwegian Supreme Court tried a case like this.(7)
The court had to decide on two questions. The first question was whether a period of six days of detention without the appearance of the accused in court was in accordance with the rules in the Criminal Procedure Act. The other question was whether this implied a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Assuming that the national provisions ought to be applied in accordance with the Convention, the Supreme Court combined the two questions into one.(8)
The Supreme Court assumed that detention in custody for six days without court control was not in accordance with the actual provision in the Convention rule, which requires that "Everyone arrested... shall be brought promptly before a judge." Consequently, the Supreme Court considered the period of uncontrolled detention in custody is a violation of 183 in the Criminal Procedure Act.
In cases of espionage, the person detained must be brought before a judge within one week ( 183). Whether or not this will imply a violation of the Convention is an interesting question, which has not yet been tried by the Supreme Court. In ordinary cases, such a period of detention without court control would clearly be in conflict with the requirement of "prompt" appearance. If such a case arises, it will probably be argued by the prosecution that such an extension of the time limit is necessary, because of the special circumstances in cases of espionage. The main question therefore should be to what extent, if any, the interests of the state should be regarded as a relevant argument when interpreting art.5 no.3 of the European Convention .
2. The Court's Control on Preventive Measures
If the offender is mentally retarded, preventive supervision can be imposed on him, according to the conditions in 39 of the Criminal Code. The decision on this, as well as on which preventive measures can be used , is made by the court. The Ministry of Justice then has to choose which measures are actually to be implemented. The offender can bring the Ministry's decision before the courts, in accordance with chapter 30 of the Civil Procedure Act.
A Norwegian case, concerning these questions, was brought before the European Court of Human Rights in 1990.(9) The Ministry of Justice had decided that the offender ought to undergo preventive supervision inside an institution. The person in question sued the Norwegian State at the Oslo City Court claiming that he should be released, because the Ministry's decision was invalid. The court found no reasons for invalidity and consequently ruled in favour of the state.
One of the questions before the Human Rights Court was whether the Norwegian Court had handled the case in due time, considering that the offender had been detained in an institution while awaiting the court's decision. Eight weeks had passed before the Oslo City Court had made its decision. The Human Rights Court considered this not to be in accordance with art.5 no.4 of the European Convention, which requires that "the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court." Consequently, the Human Rights Court concluded that there had been a violation. This was the first case in which the Human Rights Court concluded that the Norwegian authorities had violated the Convention.
F. Hearing
1. Trial in Absentia, with Special Regard to Appeals in Criminal Cases
As stated before, it is regarded as an essential legal principle in Norwegian criminal procedure law that the person charged should be present at the court trial, in order to defend himself. However, if he does not appear at the main hearing, despite having received notification, the case can still be handled by the court, if the person charged either consents to it, is absent without a legal ground or has escaped after having received notification on the charges against him. An additional condition is that the prosecutor will not demand more than one year of imprisonment ( 281). The rules that are described here are applicable in cases that are handled by a court of the first instance.
During the last years there has, however, been some discussion among Norwegian lawyers and politicians, on whether the person charged ought to be present at the court of appeal, even if the appeal is grounded on legal questions only. Appeal in such cases were handled by the Supreme Court, until the Criminal Procedure Act was revised in 1993.(10) According to the former 362, the Supreme Court was entitled to deliver a new judgment in the case, instead of annulling a decision of acquittal by a lower court, " if the necessary conditions are present". In this way the person charged could be convicted without having had the possibility to testify at the court. Consequently, the question arose, whether this was in accordance with the requirements of the European Convention.
One such case has recently been decided upon by the Human Rights Court.(11)
The complainant, Botten, had been charged for misconduct during a rescue
operation at Jan Mayen, while a station manager on the island. He was acquitted
by the Bodø City Court. However, the prosecuting authorities appealed
the decision to the Supreme Court, claiming that the acquittal was wrongful
on the interpretation of the section in question - 78 of the Military Criminal
Code. The Supreme Court disagreed with the city court on the legal question.
More important, the Supreme Court delivered a new judgment in the case,
even though Botten was not present at the court trial. In the new judgment
Botten was convicted and sentenced to pay 5000 Norwegian Kroner as a fine,
and to remain 20 days in detention under guard, the latter being a suspended
sentence.(12)
The Human Rights Court ruled, with a majority of seven votes against two, that there had been a violation of art. 6 of the Convention, concerning the principle of fair trial. The majority assumed that the Supreme Court was unable to consider the case in a satisfactory way, unless Mr. Botten was present in the court and could testify before it. His presence was regarded as necessary both for the decision on the question of guilt and the sentencing. The minority argued that the presence of the person charged was unnecessary, given that the facts were undisputed and the Supreme Court had to decide only on the interpretation of the section in question.
Due to the reform of the Criminal Procedure Act in 1995 the questions in the Botten case are probably solved in a satisfactory way by legislation. The right of the person charged to be present at the trial of appeal is better secured than it was before. According to the law reform, appeals in criminal cases are handled by the High Courts. The person charged has to be notified in due time and is entitled to be present at the court proceedings and to testify before the court of appeal ( 334 and 339). Nevertheless, the Norwegian authorities will have to consider whether other remedies are to be implemented, and will certainly do so. One effective remedy would probably be to alter the Criminal Procedure Act, so that the court of appeals is not entitled to deliver a new judgment convicting the person charged, unless he has been present at the appeal trial.
2. The Right of the Accused to Examine Adverse Witnesses
The party who has called the witness is entitled to begin the examination. Thereafter, the other party may examine the witness. When both parties have finished their examination, the members of the court can put questions to the witness. These rules are expressed in 135 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Norway has no strict system of examination in chief and cross examination of witnesses, like the one which is applied in the common law countries. The court has a responsibility to see that the questions are relevant and limited to what is necessary in the actual case. (136). This could also be seen as a part of the court's duty to seek to clarify the case, which is laid down in 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
From this, it follows that the accused person has the right to examine witnesses who have been called by the prosecutor. This is not a problem if the witness appears in court. If the witness is not present during the main hearing however, the Criminal Procedure Act permits the use of statements from the witness, recorded in police reports, if it is impossible or unduly expensive or inconvenient to call the witness in court (297). In this way, hearsay evidence has frequently been used in criminal cases in Norway.
As a consequence however, the accused will be deprived from using his right to examine the witness, as laid down in 135 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore, the question arises whether it implies a violation of art. 6 no. 3 lit. d of the European Convention, which expresses the right of the person charged "to examine or have examined witnesses against him." The European Court of Human Rights has assumed that the deprivation of the right of the accused to put questions to the witness at the main hearing does not necessarily imply a violation of the Convention. The important question is whether the person charged has had a fair trial, in spite of the lack of opportunity to examine the witness.
The Norwegian Supreme Court has based its decisions on the principles laid down by the Human Rights Court, assuming that 297 of the Criminal Procedure Act ought to be applied in accordance with art. 6 no. 3 lit. d of the Convention. Consequently, the conditions directly expressed in 297 for using police report statements from witnesses must be supplied with the requirements in the European Convention.(13)
This has led to an improvement in the right of the accused to examine adverse witnesses. It should be regarded as an absolute right, if it is an important witness in the case. In order to achieve this, the court will have to postpone the case if it is impossible to obtain the attendance of the witness at the main hearing.
G. Composition of the Court
1. Independence and Impartiality of Judges
Judges are appointed by the King, i.e. the government, on the advice of the Ministry of Justice. Before the appointment, a panel of three persons, consisting of a practising lawyer, a judge and a senior state official, presents a recommendation, in which it expresses its opinion on the applicants. The purpose of this procedure is to guarantee that the persons appointed are independent and sufficiently qualified. The Parliament plays no role at this stage, but receives annual notifications of the appointments made by the government.
The judges are appointed for "life", i.e. until a fixed retirement at age 70. They can only be removed by a decision of a court of law.
The impartiality of the judges sitting in a case is guaranteed by rules on disqualification. The Courts of Justice Act provides that a judge cannot participate in a case if he is too closely connected with one of the parties or if he has a personal interest in the case ( 106 and 108).
The judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in the Hauschildt case(14) has had an impact on the Norwegian criminal procedure law with respect to the question of impartiality of judges. The Human Rights Court ruled that a judge who had decided upon remand in custody, and by this assumed that there existed a strong suspicion against the accused person, was not impartial at the main hearing. The Norwegian rules on remand in custody are very similar to the Danish rules, and therefore the decision in the Hauschildt case has led to a stricter opinion on the question of impartiality of judges in Norway as well. However, the Norwegian law codification on impartiality of judges has not been amended because of the Hauschildt decision, as it has in Denmark.
If a judge has assumed a "particularly confirmed suspicion" when deciding on remand in custody, he is considered to be disqualified at the main hearing. He is not regarded as disqualified, however, if he has only assumed a "justified suspicion", even not when assuming this in several decisions on detention in the case.
2. Trial by Judge, Jury and Lay Assessors
There are some significant differences between the Danish and Norwegian criminal procedure systems on the question of lay participation. Shortly, it would be right to say that lay participation as a principle is more important in Norway than in Denmark. Participation by laymen has a very long tradition in Norway, mostly in criminal cases, but in civil cases as well. Trial by jury is, however, not mentioned in the Norwegian Constitution, as distinct from the Danish Constitution, and is therefore not regarded as a constitutional right for the person charged. The position of the jury is also in some ways weaker in Norway than in Denmark when it comes to practical questions. In Sweden and Finland lay participation is almost exclusively organized as mixed courts with almost no jury cases.
The former Criminal Procedure Act, which dated from 1887, was known as "The Jury Act", because it introduced the jury in criminal cases. However, the system of lay assessors has played a more important role in this century than trial by jury. The Criminal Procedure Act of 1981 has upheld the jury system in some cases, but due to law reforms in 1989 and 1993 the number of jury cases and the importance of the jury has declined considerably.
In Norway, only cases upon a guilty plea are handled by the judge alone. An additional condition is that the maximum penalty must not exceed 10 years of imprisonment ( 248). In Denmark, however, minor cases concerning a fine only are decided by a single judge, even if the accused has pleaded not guilty.
Due to a law reform in 1993, all criminal cases in Norway are handled by the city court or the district court in the first instance ( 5). The cases are handled by mixed courts, normally with one judge and two lay assessors participating ( 276). There are no trials by jury in the city courts or the district courts.
In the High Courts, appeals in criminal cases are handled by judges alone, mixed courts or juries, depending on the grounds of appeal and the seriousness of the case. Lay participation is obligatory if the court is to decide whether the accused has committed the offence. The question of guilt is normally decided upon by a jury if the maximum penalty exceeds six years of imprisonment ( 352), and if not, by three judges and four lay assessors (332).
In Denmark, High Court juries are used only if the prosecution demands at least four years of imprisonment in the actual case. Since there are probably more Norwegian cases in which the maximum penalty exceeds six years of imprisonment than the number of Danish cases in which the prosecution demands more than four years of imprisonment , one should think that there are more jury cases in Norway than in Denmark. The number of jury cases in Norway is, however, rather small since trial by jury is used only in appeal cases in the High Courts according to the law reform of 1993.
It follows from 355 of the Criminal Procedure Act that the jury consists of ten members. Seven votes are necessary for a guilty verdict and four votes for an acquittal. Consequently, the system of hung juries has not been adopted in Norway. The court, which consists of three judges, may quash a guilty verdict by majority ( 376 lit. c). A not guilty verdict may also be quashed by the judges, if there is no doubt in the judges' opinion that the person charged is guilty and the judges agree on quashing the not guilty verdict ( 376 lit. a). The latter rule is different from the Danish system, which considers a not guilty verdict by the jury as a final acquittal. If the verdict is quashed, the appeal case is to be handled once more, only this time by a mixed court ( 376 lit. a and lit. c). This rule also reduces the importance of the jury in Norwegian criminal procedure law.
H. Appeal in Criminal Cases
There are some significant differences between the Danish and Norwegian systems in this field too. In Norway, decisions by a city court or a district court may be appealed to the High Court, in accordance with 306 in the Criminal Procedure Act. The appeal may refer either to the question of guilt, a procedural error or the sentencing. The High Court is entitled to reject an appeal without having had a main hearing in all but the most serious cases (321). The High Court's decision may be further appealed to the Supreme Court (323).
The existing rules on appeal in criminal cases are due to a the law reform of 1993, which went into force in 1995.(15)
Before that, most cases which included a maximum penalty exceeding six years of imprisonment were decided upon by the High Court in the first instance. The law reform was passed first and foremost in order to ensure the right to a full appeal in the most serious cases. Before the reform, this was not possible if the case started in the High Court as the first instance.
In Denmark, the appeal system in jury cases is rather similar to the previous Norwegian appeal system before the law reform of 1993. According to the Danish system, the most serious cases are decided upon by a jury in the High Court in the first instance, and therefore, the possibility of appeal is very limited, as far as the question of guilt is concerned. However, the right to appeal in medium and minor cases, which are not handled by juries, must be considered to be wider in Denmark than in Norway. This is due to the fact that the High Courts in Denmark have a more limited right than the Norwegian High Courts to reject an appeal without having had a main hearing in the appeal case.
I. Other Remedies
1. Compensation for Unjust Punishment and Deprivation of Liberty
The Criminal Procedure Act contains several provisions on monetary compensation for damage to the person concerned, caused by the prosecution (444 and 445). The conditions are the same, whether the person charged is acquitted or the prosecution is discontinued. In this field, the Norwegian provisions differ form the Danish.
The person charged is entitled to monetary compensation if it is likely that he has not committed the act mentioned in the charge ( 444). In this connection, the burden of proof is placed on the person charged. In order to be entitled to compensation, he has to demonstrate the probability of not having committed the act.
Cases on compensation to the person charged brings forward a question
of legal nature related to the presumption of innocence. This principle
is laid down in art. 6 no. 2 in the European Convention on Human Rights,
which expresses that "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall
be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." The Human
Rights Court has assumed that the presumption of innocence is applicable
even after the criminal case is ended. This probably shows that the actual
principle has a wider aim than to protect the person charged from a wrongful
conviction, as it protects his honour as well. Thus, if the court rejects
the claim for compensation, it must avoid arguing in a way that questions
the correctness of the acquittal in the criminal case. In other words,
the court must steer clear of the question of guilt. This follows from
the ruling of the Human Rights Court in the Sekanina case.(16)
The Norwegian Supreme Court has handled many cases during the past years, concerning the acquitted person's claim for compensation. The relationship between art. 6 no. 2 in the European Convention and 444 in the Criminal Procedure Act has been focused on in several of the cases. In one of the cases, the acquitted person has brought a complaint before the Human Rights Commission, claiming that the High Court, when deciding in the compensation case, has argued in a way that questions the correctness of the acquittal and thus violated the presumption of innocence.
If the person concerned has served a sentence because of the charge, he is entitled to monetary compensation for actual losses, regardless of whether or not he has shown the probability of not having committed the act ( 444). Remand in custody, however, does not in itself justify a right to compensation.
Even if the conditions in 444 are not fulfilled, compensation can be granted if the injury to the person charged is severe or disproportionate, provided that such compensation is regarded as fair (445). However, the conditions pursuant to this provision are rather strict.
Reparation can be granted in addition to compensation for economic losses if the conditions in 444 or 445 are fulfilled. In addition, special reasons must exist in the case, e.g. severe loss of honour ( 446).
The rules on compensation for damage caused by the prosecution have been criticized during the last few years. The critics have particularly pointed at the condition that the person charged, as a main rule, has to demonstrate the probability of not having committed the act, in order to receive compensation. It has been argued that this leads to two kinds of acquittal in criminal cases: the complete one and the less complete, which leaves the acquitted person still a suspect. In addition, the possibility of a conflict with the presumption of innocence has been emphasized.
The Norwegian Criminal Legislation Council has been asked by the government to examine whether the existing provisions should be altered, and eventually to consider more objective rules. However, it has been emphasized that compensation should not become obligatory if the person charged is acquitted or the case is dropped by the prosecution.
1. The main work on the subject is Johs. Andenæs: Norsk straffeprosess (The Norwegian Law on Criminal Procedure), 1994.
2. The Criminal Procedure Act of 1981 is discussed by Hans Kr. Bjerke and Erik Keiserud : Straffeprosessloven med kommentarer (The Criminal Procedure Act commented), 1986.
3. The appeal system was amended by a law which was passed on the 11th of June 1993 and went into force on the 1st of August 1995.
4. The influence of the European Convention on Norwegian criminal procedure law is described by Jørgen Aall : Rettergang og menneskerettigheter (Trial and human rights), 1995 and Johs. Andenæs : Den europeiske menneskerettighetskonvensjon og norsk straffeprosess (The European Convention on Human Rights and Norwegian Criminal Procedure law), Lov og Rett (Norwegian Law Review), 1993, p. 375 et seq.
5. See the reference in note 3.
6. NOU 1993 : 18 Lovgivning om menneskerettigheter (Legislation on Human Rights).
7. Norsk Retstidende (Norwegian Law Reports), 1991, p. 777 et seq.
8. This principle is most clearly expressed by the Supreme Court in a decision from 1984; Norsk Retstidende (Norwegian Law Reports), 1984, p. 1175 et seq.
9. Case of E. v. Norway; judgement passed on the 29th of August 1990 (12/1989/172/228).
10. See the reference in note 3.
11. Case of Botten v. Norway; judgment passed on the 19th of February 1996.
12. Norsk Retstidende (Norwegian Law Reports), 1989, p. 715 et seq.
13. The subject is dealt with by Sverre Erik Jebens: Opplesning av vitneforklaringer - etter straffeprosessloven og den europeiske menneskerettighetskonvensjon (The use of witness statements - according to The Criminal Procedure Act and The European Convention on Human Rights), Lov og Rett (Norwegian Law Review), 1993, p. 87 et seq.
14. Case of Hauschildt v. Denmark; judgment passed on the 24th of May 1989 (11/1987/134/188).
15. See the reference in note 3.
16. Case of Sekanina v. Austria; judgment passed on the 25th of August 1993 (21/1992/366/440).