Recommendations in the Annual Report to Parliament for 2024

Each year, the Norwegian Human Rights Institution (NIM) focuses on some selected topics and issues that are highlighted in the Annual Report.

These recommendations presented in the Annual Report to Parliament are selected based on certain criteria in conformity with the Act relating to the Norwegian Human Rights Institution. NIM works on a broad range of human rights issues, providing concrete recommendations to the responsible authorities, including in consultation processes. The recommendations presented in the Annual Report to Parliament represent a limited selection of issues that raise important human rights questions, to which NIM believes Parliament should pay particular attention.

NIM’s mandate is to “promote and protect” human rights in accordance with, i.a. the Constitution, and international treaties binding on Norway. This involves contributing in clarifying the legal framework that human rights set for politics, and at the same time being clear about the distinction between law and politics. This distinction is, however, not always clear, ince human rights sometimes require specific measures from states, and at other times, set more overarching goals that require holistic assessments.

Since the human rights conventions apply to states with different national systems, the obligations can be fulfilled through different political solutions. At the same time, human rights are developing dynamically, which has been clearly illustrated through climate law in recent years. It is therefore important for NIM to point out relevant legal developments to ensure that political decisions are made on an up-to-date basis.

NIM’s recommendations therefore vary in nature. Some of them identify areas where there is a clear risk of violation and make recommendations for measures to reduce such risks. NIM also makes recommendations that can contribute to a strengthened realisation of rights, even where this does not express specific legal obligations.  We place great emphasis on clarifying this distinction in our communication.

NIM follows up on recommendations we have put forward. We emphasise that in the authorities’ follow-up, the development of measures that affect children must take into account the best interests of children and ensure children’s right to participation.

Strengthening the child perspective in child welfare cases

Justification

Children’s rights to care, protection and participation are fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The evidence base shows that children’s perspectives and rights in child welfare cases must be better safeguarded.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has convicted Norway in a number of cases, particularly in relation to the determination of access for the biological parents after care placement without sufficient justification and basis for decision-making. What is essential to these cases is that a concrete and detailed justification has been given, and it has been made clear that the various interests have been assessed and balanced against each other, while at the same time the child’s best interests have been given great weight. Although the judgements have not changed the threshold for care placement, the number of care placements has decreased, the number of children receiving assistance has decreased and more access is granted than before, according to the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs, (Bufdir). Although we do not fully know the reasons for the changes, it can still be questioned whether the child’s rights are sufficiently safeguarded as practice currently stands. It is crucial that reliable knowledge concerning this is put in place.¹ NIM is aware that work is being done to obtain research on this.

The field of child welfare is characterised by frequent regulatory changes, and it is important that measures are evaluated before new ones are implemented. In NIM’s view, further reform efforts should focus in particular on safeguarding the best interests of the child and the child’s right to participation. If it is the case that the ECtHR’s latest case law has led to a weakening of children’s rights, strengthening these two rights could help to counteract this. Regardless of such causal relationships, strengthening rights is necessary. Many measures have been initiated to strengthen the child perspective in child welfare cases in recent years, but much remains to be done.

The right to participation and consideration of the best interests of the child must be better ensured for all children, but there is reason to highlight young children who do not have party rights or are so young that more is required to understand them. NIM points to three measures that may be suitable for strengthening children’s legal position:

1. The Child Welfare Boards’ guide specifies that assessments of the child’s best interests must be based on the child’s point of view. One proposed measure is to include this explicitly in the Child Welfare Act.² NOU 2024: 13, section 24.3.2.
2. Furthermore, the Ministry is considering an independent representation for children nationally as a possible measure.³ NOU 2023: 7. See also the Child Welfare and Health Boards’ consultation statement on proposed amendments to the Child Welfare Act from April 2024. This work should be prioritised.
3. NIM has previously recommended that separate representatives for the child should be appointed in cases before the ECHR, since there may be a conflict of interest between children and biological parents in such cases.

Duty to prevent violence and flow of information in cases of violence and abuse

Justification

Norway is obliged under, i.a., the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Istanbul Convention to have a comprehensive system that prevents and combats violence, abuse and neglect. A fundamental pillar is to ensure effective flow of information between the services with the associated trust from victims of violence. The knowledge base shows that this does not work well enough.

This obligation means that the authorities must ensure that people who witness acts of violence, or who have reasonable grounds to believe that such acts will occur, report them. The duty of confidentiality should not be a barrier to reporting serious acts of violence and abuse.⁴ Istanbul Convention Arts. 27 and 28, see explanatory report to these provisions. See also Lanzarote Convention Art. 12 and the Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment no. 13 (2011). Where it is a child who provides information about acts of violence, the right to participation and consideration for the best interests of the child must be ensured.⁵Convention on the Rights of the Child Arts. 3, 12 and 19.

Norwegian law contains several provisions on information-sharing and statutory duty of prevention that apply to both persons in the services and private individuals, without prejudice to the duty of confidentiality. Public employees and certain other professional groups also have a duty to report to child welfare services, and the Public Administration Act allows for the right to share information beyond the duty of prevention, to the extent necessary to avoid danger to life or health.⁶ See Penal Code § 196, Child Welfare Act § 13-2 and Public Administration Act § 13 b.

The review of violence and abuse cases by the Child Abuse Committee⁷NOU 2017 :12, as well as several subsequent public committees, has shown that the rules are difficult to access for the services. There is uncertainty about the content of the rules, the duty of confidentiality is often interpreted more strictly than necessary, and there have been discussions as to whether the regulations can be made more understandable and educational.⁸NOU 2017: 12; NOU 2020: 17; Document 3:8 (2021–2022); NOU 2024: 4 and NOU 2024: 13.

In recent years, the authorities have implemented several measures, such as amendments to the Public Administration Act, training and competence-raising measures in the services, publication of guidelines and funding of research.⁹ For example, the Ministry of Justice and Public Security’s guide on the topic or the website www.plikt.no. Despite this, the reports, most recently the Rape Committee in 2024, show that the problem is still extensive/substantial/considerable¹⁰Voldtektsutvalget.

In addition to strengthening the implementation of existing measures, NIM therefore recommends that the authorities should consider establishing a national advisory service that can provide specific advice in individual cases. Such a service would strengthen the existing measures and provide better legal certainty and predictability for employees who are faced with demanding assessment situations.

Equal care for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers

Justification

Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers in reception centres are treated differently and they receive an offer of lower quality, and with fewer legal/procedural guarantees, than children of the same age in the care of child welfare services.

Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers over the age of 15 and some asylum seekers with an accompanying adult are placed in asylum reception centres under the immigration authorities. The care they receive is significantly poorer than the care other children of the same age group receive in institutions under the child welfare services. Children in reception centres cannot complain about the care either, unlike children under the child welfare services.

Violations of the law have been uncovered in most inspections. At one inspection, the County Governor considered the follow-up to be random and unsystematic, with a high risk that the children did not receive the care they needed. NIM’s assessment is that the current solution violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It is positive that the Parliament has strengthened funding for child professional competence and activity offers for children in reception centres. However, the regulations stipulate that the care services for unaccompanied minors in reception centres shall be of lower quality. Equal treatment between this group of children and other children in public care will only be achieved if the responsibility for care is transferred to the Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufetat), or if laws and regulations are amended so that equal care is provided.

Regular assessments of the care situation are necessary to comply with Article 25 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on periodic assessments. In the 2025 state budget, Parliament has significantly increased the funding for supervision. NIM believes this is a major step forward.

Article 25 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child also requires independent, individual assessments of the child’s care and placement needs, including whether the child should be placed with an accompanying person or in a reception centre. Regulations and guidelines must reflect these requirements.

Equal care and individual assessments are also necessary to prevent children from disappearing from reception centres. According to a survey by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) in 2022, 432 missing children were still missing.¹¹ The UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances is operating with “at least” 356 missing children. The Committee refers to information from Norwegian authorities concerning inadequate procedures for keeping statistics on unaccompanied minors who have disappeared from reception centres. Children are particularly vulnerable to human trafficking, crime and forced return. The authorities have stated that they are working on updated guidelines for missing persons. Several UN committees have criticized Norway for the disappearance cases, most recently the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances in November 2024. The Committee is particularly concerned with the lack of information about the children, and calls for detailed statistics. The Committee recommends thorough measures.

Protection against rape

Justification

The authorities have a human rights responsibility to prevent and protect against rape. The high numbers/rates of rape are serious, and existing knowledge base reveals significant weaknesses in how the authorities fulfil their human rights duty to protect.

23 per cent of women and 3 per cent of men report having been subjected to rape during their lifetime, while among children and young people, the figures are 16 per cent of girls and 4 per cent of boys.¹² Dale et al., Extent of violence and abuse in the Norwegian population (NKVTS, report no. 1, 2023) and Frøyland et al., Violence and abuse against children and young people: Extent and trends 2007-2023 (NOVA, report no. 11, 2023).

When the scale/scope of rape is so high, it is particularly serious that the Rape Committee¹³NOU 2024:4 concluded in 2024 that it found “few signs of systematic work at the government level to prevent and combat rape”. This has resulted in work against rape not being prioritised in prevention, the health service, the police and the prosecuting authority. The Committee particularly highlights the disquieting situation for vulnerable groups, such as people with disabilities, and points out large geographical differences in the health care provided to rape victims. The forensic medical service is inadequate, and several rape victims find the processing of the criminal case demanding.

Norway is obliged under, i.a., the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Istanbul Convention to prevent and combat rape. The Istanbul Convention is particularly important because it contains detailed requirements for the authorities’ work, from prevention to criminal prosecution and care for the victims of violence. A fundamental principle is that a holistic and systematic approach is needed to the design of measures to combat rape.

Human rights, and in particular the Istanbul Convention, obligate/oblige Norway to have legislation that criminalises violence and rape, as intentional sexual acts against persons without consent.

Although the follow-up of changes to the rape provision in the Criminal Code is underway and is fundamental, it is clear that legislation alone is not sufficient.¹⁴ NOU 2022: 21 is still under consideration by the Government. NIM’s input to the Criminal Code Council and the consultation statement to the NOU can be found at nhri.no. A broader effort is needed that includes prevention and support for victims and vulnerable. Some of the Rape Commission’s proposals for solutions have been considered by the Government and Parliament, but the current effort is not sufficient.¹⁵ NOU 2024: 4 is still under consideration by the Government. The Government’s escalation plan against violence and abuse against children and violence in close relationships for 2024-2028 contains some concrete measures. Parliament has also made relevant request decisions in the consideration of the plan.

The Commission’s findings are a clear response to the authorities’ failure to safeguard the rights of rape victims. NIM believes that a comprehensive approach where the challenges and solutions are seen in context is absolutely necessary for Norway to be able to fulfil its duty to protect against rape.

Rights in custody

Justification

The conditions of inmates in Norwegian prisons entail a number of human rights challenges. Since its establishment in 2015, NIM has submitted recommendations to the authorities regarding prison conditions. These stand firm. This year, we are submitting a recommendation regarding a special group in prison, namely persons who are remanded in custody. That is, persons who have not been convicted of a criminal offence, but are in prison awaiting trial.

Persons in custody are a vulnerable group, with an increased risk of suicide. This means that they should be ensured conditions that reduce the burden of being incarcerated. Norway has recently been convicted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of violating the right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), for not having done enough to prevent an inmate in custody from taking his own life. Among other things, inadequate health services were pointed out. This should be a warning to the authorities to improve conditions in custody.¹⁶ Haugen v. Norway. The state has appealed the case to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR. The judgement is therefore not final.

According to Article 10 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), people accused of a criminal offence must be kept separate from convicted persons, except in exceptional circumstances/special cases.¹⁷ According to the UN Human Rights Committee, this is related to the need to ensure the fulfilment of the presumption of innocence in practice, see the Committee’s General Comment no. 21, paragraph 9. This distinction is not consistently implemented in Norwegian law, although Norway has not made a reservation against the requirement.

Inmates in custody should be treated as unconvicted, in line with the presumption of innocence. The Council of Europe recommends that prisoners in custody should have prison conditions that are adapted to their legal status, and that they should not be subject to more severe restrictions than necessary.¹⁸ Recommendation Rec (2006)2-rev, adopted by the Council of Europe’s Council of Ministers on 11 Jan. 2006. Inmates in custody should be able to receive more visits, have more access to other means of communication and have access to books and news media.

Parliament should therefore request the Government to investigate further compensatory measures for inmates in custody, such as expanded communication access and contact with the outside world, access to digital tools and the internet.¹⁹ The Committee on Criminal Justice Reactions and Mental Health (the Criminal Justice Reactions Committee) has a deadline to submit its report by 1 March 2025. This will touch on some questions, but does not contain any general report on the conditions for detainees.

The Norwegian Correctional Service can suspend the execution of a sentence due to the health of a convicted person, but there is no equivalent option for remand prisoners/prisoners in custody. Inadequate health care or the health situation of the prisoner can make remand detention disproportionate, but it is only the prosecution or the court that can decide on release. This could lead to cases where the Norwegian Correctional Service considers imprisonment is unsuitable, without the prosecuting authority releasing the prisoner. Parliament should therefore ask the Government to investigate whether the Norwegian Correctional Service itself can be given the right to apply to the prosecuting authority for release or alternatives to imprisonment. In the event of a rejection, the inmate should have the opportunity to bring the case to court.

In addition to these measures that apply specifically to remand/custody, NIM believes that our previous recommendations on prisons must be followed up. These include better health care, systemic measures to care for inmates with mental illnesses or developmental disabilities, less isolation and coercion, and more meaningful activity in prison. These are measures that will benefit all inmates, including those in custody. The Government is working on a new white paper to Parliament on Norwegian correctional services. It is high time for a major improvement in conditions in Norwegian prisons.