ÿWPCd& Á²NÅ0wÎ̆KTŽk‰s.Û$âxa¢øÌdªñV˜uHÏЇ!„eÏÑ&Ÿû’3í'J ;.½úüÝÌ&²q‡sŸã–.ÓM{ÅRDm㆗hžÑè¢EeñþÚL׊haÕd÷؃£xbu‘R¨p HlXDãå—¡VÁîŽS„¬„c2DÍ! ñð­‡0§ÿž¬´›±H„1ü–a+³ÐÈÁí@­ž:Œç~³°ª„KÌýF¶¡Vî4]<À¨ë-9¬ºš¬Ùì;³0bPóN)¦B“¯<"ùq+™µ¢‚B>.E\¦kl)Â\A«}6€Ô‚­§ÜÕ–àOÄ/!BåŒN­^‡zŽžvÓw Áqû­éê÷áS³"Aâa‰pVâÑ"’Œ™ù ¢°Îç®ËÞ©©ØðPŒËÎ#kÀGëùG;¾•ÜÅsc˜=Ùs+Zs Ðl/L/ÖX»:O[ÂBMÓ„Wáþù™N# 0ˆ'zJ9°?ƒÙsœ ‹MJÒâB:&Këà"ŽfÑî¸ØŽõc¼Á&f¦T•qˆz?àçÛ^ÁŸÛÃ5¥˜Pô ³•¾"TD‚¨¾«‹¾0 yûS°˜qïÕ†TýkHé¨~6U>ôÌ2 0µþ 0<³ 0Yï 0_H 0i§ Æ 0ÑÖ 0(§ D+Ï AMú %G 0îM ; 0NK 0¶™ #ÁOUN 0ë^MI(MNu^ wwƒ4‡› m 0è´ 0åœ 0â 0ßc 0ÜB 0Ù 0Ö÷ 0ÜÍ 0Ù© 0Ö‚ 0ÓX 0Ð+ 0Íû 0ÊÈ 0Ç’ 0ÄY 0Û 0Øø 0ÕÐ 0Ò¥! 0Ïw" 0ÌF# 0É$ 0ÆÛ$ 0á%ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Narrainen v. Norway, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Communication 4ation, Communication "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(©2—L$££Ý ƒ!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xô_XXXÔÔ€Xô_XXXô_ÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿX2G+J ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó#|x(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(Ž$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xä«XXXÔÔ€Xä«XXXä«Ô˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular2D+J ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó­yú* Äpì*ü0§ ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2A+J ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+J ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+J ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+J ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+J ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+J ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/+J ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DJ ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DJ ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xô_XXXÔÔ€Xô_XXXô_ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òCOMMITTEE€ON€THE€ELIMINATION€OF€RACIAL€DISCRIMINATIONÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔNarrainenÔ_Ô€v.€NorwayóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€3/1991Ð H˜ ÐÌ15€March€1994Ð  d ÐÌÔ_ÔCERDÔ_Ô/C/44/D/3/1991Ð à 0 ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Michel€L.€N.€Ô_ÔNarrainenÔ_Ô€(represented€by€counsel)€Ð D”  ÐÌòòState€party€concernedóó:€Norway€Ð ` ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€15€August€1991€(date€of€initial€letter)€óóÐ Ü, ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThe€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discriminationóó,€established€under€article€8€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,Ð tÄ ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€15€March€1994,€Ð @ ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€3/1991,€submitted€to€theÐ  \ ÐCommittee€by€Michel€L.€N.€Ô_ÔNarrainenÔ_Ô€under€article€14€of€the€International€Convention€onÐ òB Ðthe€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,Ð Ø( ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€considerationóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€on€behalf€ofÐ ¤ô ÐMichel€L.€N.€Ô_ÔNarrainenÔ_Ô€and€by€the€State€party,Ð Š Ú ÐÌòòBearing€in€mindóó€rule€95€of€its€rules€of€procedure€requiring€it€to€formulate€its€opinion€on€theÐ V"¦! Ðcommunication€before€it,€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following€opinion:Ð %X $ ÐÌÌÓ4Óòòò òOPINIONó óóóÐ º' #' ÐÓÓÌÌ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€submission€dated€15€August€1991)€is€Michel€L.Ð l*¼%* ÐN.€Ô_ÔNarrainenÔ_Ô,€a€Norwegian€citizen€born€in€1942,€currently€detained€in€a€penitentiary€in€Oslo.Ð R+¢&+ ÐHe€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€violations€by€Norway€of€his€rights€under€the€InternationalÐ 8,ˆ', ÐConvention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,€but€does€not€invokeÐ -n(- Ðspecific€provisions€of€the€Convention.Ð ° ÐÌòòThe€facts€as€found€by€the€CommitteeóóÐ |Ì ÐÌ2.1€The€author€is€of€Tamil€origin€and€was€born€in€Mauritius;€in€1972,€he€was€naturalized€andÐ H˜ Ðbecame€a€Norwegian€citizen.€On€25€January€1990,€he€was€arrested€in€connection€with€aÐ . ~ Ðdrug„related€offence.€On€8€February€1991,€before€the€Ô_ÔEidsivatingÔ_Ô€High€Court€(Court€ofÐ  d ÐAppeal€„€"Ô_ÔLagmannsrettenÔ_Ô"),€a€jury€of€10€found€him€guilty€of€offences€against€section€162Ð ú J Ðof€the€Criminal€Code€(drug€trafficking),€and€the€author€was€sentenced€to€six€and€a€half€years'Ð à 0 Ðimprisonment.€The€author€appealed€to€the€Supreme€Court,€but€leave€to€appeal€was€deniedÐ Æ   Ðin€early€March€1991.€On€17€February€1992,€the€author€filed€a€petition€for€reopening€of€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðcase.€By€order€of€8€July€1992,€the€Court€of€Appeal€refused€the€request.€The€author€againÐ ’â  Ðappealed€the€order€to€the€Supreme€Court€which,€on€24€September€1992,€ruled€that€the€caseÐ xÈ  Ðwas€not€to€be€reopened.Ð ^®  ÐÌ2.2€The€author€contends€that€there€was€no€case€against€him,€except€for€the€evidence€givenÐ *z  Ðby€another€individual,€S.€B.,€already€convicted€of€drug„related€offences,€who€allegedly€hadÐ ` Ðbeen€promised€a€reduction€of€his€sentence€in€exchange€for€providing€incriminating€evidenceÐ öF Ðagainst€the€author.€In€court,€S.€B.€withdrew€these€allegations.€In€the€same€context,€the€authorÐ Ü, Ðcomplains€about€the€allegedly€"racist"€attitude€of€the€investigating€police€officer,€S.€A.,€whoÐ Â Ðreportedly€made€it€clear€that€he€"wished€that€people€like€me€had€never€set€foot€in€hisÐ ¨ø Ðcountry"€(author's€quote).Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ2.3€The€author€contends€that€under€the€terms€of€the€initial€indictment,€he€was€accused€ofÐ Zª Ðhaving€Ô_ÔtravelledÔ_Ô€to€the€Netherlands€in€the€early€summer€of€1989€to€buy€amphetamines.€WhenÐ @ Ðhe€was€able€to€produce€evidence€that,€at€the€time€in€question,€he€was€in€Mauritius,€the€initialÐ &v Ðindictment€allegedly€was€changed€in€court,€after€his€own€legal€representative€had€contactedÐ  \ Ðthe€prosecution€and€asked€for€the€indictment€to€be€changed.€The€author€adds€that€it€wasÐ òB Ðimpossible€for€him€to€have€had€any€contacts€with€S.€B.€or€his€friends€prior€to€or€during€theÐ Ø( Ðtrial.Ð ¾ ÐÌ2.4€The€author€further€contends€that€two€jurors€in€the€Court€of€Appeal€were€biased€againstÐ Š Ú Ðhim€and€that€they€openly€stated€that€individuals€such€as€the€author,€who€lived€on€taxpayers'Ð p!À  Ðmoney,€should€be€sent€back€to€where€they€had€come€from.€The€remarks€allegedly€includedÐ V"¦! Ðslurs€on€the€Ô_ÔcolourÔ_Ô€of€the€author's€skin.€Yet€these€jurors,€although€challenged,€were€notÐ <#Œ" Ðdisqualified€by€the€Court€and€participated€in€the€deliberations€of€the€verdict.Ð "$r# ÐÌ2.5€The€State€party€gives€the€following€version€of€the€incident€referred€to€by€the€author€(seeÐ î%>!% Ðpara.€2.4):Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ"The€Court€record€shows€that€during€a€break€in€the€court€proceedings,€a€law€student,€Ms.€S.Ð  (ð#( ÐR.€H.,€overheard€a€private€conversation€between€two€members€of€the€jury,€Ms.€A.€M.€J.€andÐ †)Ö$) ÐMs.€S.€M.€M.€This€conversation€was€referred€to€Ô_ÔdefenceÔ_Ô€counsel,€who€requested€that€one€ofÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€jurors€be€dismissed.€The€court€called€the€law€student€and€two€jurors€to€testify.€(They)Ð R+¢&+ Ðagreed€on€the€facts:€Ms.€J.€had€expressed€dismay€at€the€defendant€receiving€Ô_ÔNKrÔ_Ô€9,000€aÐ 8,ˆ', Ðmonth€without€having€to€work€for€it,€and€had€also€said€that€he€ought€to€be€sent€back€to€whereÐ -n(- Ðhe€came€from.€Ms.€M.€had€said€that€the€purpose€of€a€case€like€this€was€to€get€moreÐ ° Ðinformation€about€the€drug€trafficking.€The€law€student,€Ms.€H.,€had€at€this€point€entered€theÐ –æ Ðconversation,€saying€that€the€purpose€of€a€case€like€this€was€to€determine€whether€theÐ |Ì Ðdefendant€was€guilty.€According€to€the€three€witnesses,€the€question€of€guilt€had€otherwiseÐ b² Ðnot€been€mentioned€by€any€of€them.Ð H˜ ÐÌ"Ô_ÔDefenceÔ_Ô€counsel€requested€that€Ms.€J.€be€dismissed€from€the€jury€because,€according€toÐ  d Ðsection€108€of€the€Courts'€Act,€a€juror€could€be€disqualified€if€there€are€circumstances€...€aptÐ ú J Ðto€impair€confidence€in€his€or€her€impartiality.€The€Prosecutor€claimed€that€nothing€had€beenÐ à 0 Ðsaid€that€could€influence€the€members€of€the€jury,€and€that€everyone€was€entitled€to€haveÐ Æ   Ðopinions.€Discussing€private€opinions€during€a€break€(was)€no€ground€for€disqualification,Ð ¬ ü  Ðand€the€case€itself€had€not€been€discussed€by€the€three€persons.Ð ’â  ÐÌ"The€Court€unanimously€decided€that€Ms.€J.€should€not€be€disqualified€because€she€had€notÐ ^®  Ðdiscussed€the€question€of€guilt€in€the€present€case,€and€the€views€she€had€expressed€were€notÐ D”  Ðuncommon€in€Norwegian€society."Ð *z  ÐÌòòThe€complaintóóÐ öF ÐÌ3.1€The€author€claims€that€racist€considerations€played€a€significant€part€in€his€conviction,Ð Â Ðas€the€evidence€against€him€would€not€have€supported€a€guilty€verdict.€He€adds€that€he€couldÐ ¨ø Ðnot€have€expected€to€obtain€a€fair€and€impartial€trial,€as€"all€members€of€the€jury€came€fromÐ ŽÞ Ða€certain€part€of€Oslo€where€racism€is€at€its€peak".€He€asserts€that€this€situation€violated€hisÐ tÄ Ðrights€under€the€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€RacialÐ Zª ÐDiscrimination.Ð @ ÐÌ3.2€The€author€claims€that€other€factors€should€be€taken€into€consideration€in€assessingÐ  \ Ðwhether€he€was€the€victim€of€racial€discrimination.€In€this€context,€he€mentions€the€amountÐ òB Ðof€time€spent€in€custody€prior€to€the€trial€(381€days),€out€of€which€a€total€of€nine€monthsÐ Ø( Ðwere€allegedly€spent€in€isolation,€and€the€quality€of€his€legal€representation:€thus,€althoughÐ ¾ Ðhe€was€assigned€legal€counsel€free€of€charge,€his€representative€"was€more€of€a€prosecutorÐ ¤ô Ðthan€a€lawyer€of€the€Ô_ÔdefenceÔ_Ô."€Finally,€the€author€considers€that€a€previous€drug„relatedÐ Š Ú Ðconviction,€in€1983,€was€Ô_ÔdisproportionablyÔ_Ô€and€unreasonably€used€as€character€evidenceÐ p!À  Ðagainst€him€during€the€trial€in€1991.Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€information€and€observations€and€the€author's€commentsóóÐ "$r# ÐÌ4.1€The€State€party€considers€that€the€communication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€asÐ î%>!% Ðmanifestly€ill„founded,€"in€accordance€with€the€established€practice€in€similar€internationalÐ Ô&$"& Ðhuman€rights€monitoring€bodies".Ð º' #' ÐÌ4.2€As€to€the€author's€claim€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€equal€treatment€before€the€courtsÐ †)Ö$) Ðbecause€the€jurors€were€selected€from€a€part€of€Oslo€known€for€a€prevalence€of€racistÐ l*¼%* Ðopinions,€the€State€party€notes€that€no€documentation€has€been€adduced€in€support€of€thisÐ R+¢&+ Ðcontention.€Author's€counsel€only€requested€that€one€juror€be€disqualified;€for€the€rest€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðjurors,€it€is€submitted€that€the€matter€should€have€been€raised€in€court,€and€domesticÐ -n(- Ðremedies€cannot€be€deemed€exhausted€in€their€respect.Ð ° ÐÌ4.3€After€explaining€the€operation€of€section€108€of€the€Courts'€Act€(governing€theÐ |Ì Ðdisqualification€of€jurors),€the€State€party€points€out€that€it€is€not€uncommon€for€jurors€toÐ b² Ðhave€negative€feelings€towards€the€defendant€in€a€criminal€case,€but€that€this€does€not€implyÐ H˜ Ðthat€they€are€incapable€of€giving€the€defendant€a€fair€hearing.€In€the€case€in€question,€theÐ . ~ Ðviews€expressed€by€the€jurors€were€Ô_Ôof€a€general€nature,€and€the€court's€decision€not€toÐ  d Ðdisqualify€the€juror€was€unanimous.Ð ú J ÐÌ4.4€As€to€the€author's€claim€of€unfairly€expeditious€dismissal€of€his€appeal€to€the€SupremeÐ Æ   ÐCourt,€the€State€party€notes€that€under€section€335,€subsection€2,€of€the€Code€of€CriminalÐ ¬ ü  ÐProcedure,€no€appeal€may€be€filed€with€the€Supreme€Court€if€it€merely€concerns€theÐ ’â  Ðevaluation€of€evidence€in€the€case.€In€the€author's€case,€the€appeal€was€based€on€two€grounds:Ð xÈ  Ðthe€issue€of€the€jury's€impartiality€(as€a€procedural€error)€and€the€severity€of€the€prison€termÐ ^®  Ðimposed€on€the€author.€The€State€party€notes€that€under€section€349€of€the€Code€of€CriminalÐ D”  ÐProcedure,€leave€to€appeal€should€not€be€granted€if€the€Appeals€Board€is€unanimous€that€anÐ *z  Ðappeal€would€not€succeed.€Under€section€360,€procedural€errors€shall€only€be€taken€intoÐ ` Ðconsideration€if€they€are€deemed€to€have€affected€the€substance€of€the€judgement.€In€theÐ öF Ðauthor's€case,€the€issue€of€the€length€of€the€prison€term€was€considered,€but€as€the€answer€toÐ Ü, Ðwhether€the€Supreme€Court€should€hear€the€appeal€was€negative,€it€was€deemed€unlikely€thatÐ Â Ðthe€sentence€would€be€reduced.€Concluding€on€this€issue,€the€State€party€insists€that€there€isÐ ¨ø Ðno€indication€that€the€author€was€not€given€the€same€opportunities€to€defend€his€case€beforeÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€courts€as€other€individuals,€in€connection€both€with€the€appeal€and€the€request€for€aÐ tÄ Ðreopening€of€the€case,€regardless€of€race,€colour€of€skin,€ethnic€origin,€etc.Ð Zª ÐÌ4.5€As€to€the€length€of€the€pretrial€detention,€the€State€party€explains€that€a€little€over€oneÐ &v Ðyear€of€pretrial€custody€is€not€unusual€in€cases€involving€drug„related€offences.€AccordingÐ  \ Ðto€the€State€party,€the€delay€of€nine€months€from€arrest€to€the€dispatch€of€the€indictment€toÐ òB Ðthe€Court€of€Appeal€was€partly€attributable€to€the€author€himself,€since€he€changed€hisÐ Ø( Ðlawyer€several€times€while€in€custody,€which€in€turn€delayed€the€preparations€for€the€mainÐ ¾ Ðhearing.€The€State€party€submits€that€nothing€indicates€that€the€author€was€kept€in€custodyÐ ¤ô Ðlonger€than€other€suspects€merely€because€of€his€origin;€this€part€of€the€complaint€thereforeÐ Š Ú Ðis€also€said€to€be€inadmissible€as€manifestly€ill„founded.Ð p!À  ÐÌ4.6€Finally,€the€State€party€dismisses€as€manifestly€ill„founded€the€author's€complaint€aboutÐ <#Œ" Ðthe€quality€of€his€legal€representation.€Under€section€107€of€the€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure,Ð "$r# Ða€court„appointed€lawyer€is€remunerated€by€the€State;€the€author€had€the€opportunity€toÐ %X $ Ðchoose€his€own€counsel€throughout€the€judicial€proceedings,€and€it€cannot€be€said€that€heÐ î%>!% Ðwas€subjected€to€racial€discrimination€in€this€respect.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ5.1€In€his€comments,€the€author€challenges€the€State€party's€submission€on€variousÐ  (ð#( Ðprocedural€and€factual€grounds.€He€claims€that€the€State€party's€version€of€the€judicialÐ †)Ö$) Ðproceedings€is€one„sided,€because€it€is€adapted€from€the€court€book,€which€according€to€himÐ l*¼%* Ðreveals€little€of€substance.€He€further€asserts€that€in€a€letter€to€the€Registry€of€the€SupremeÐ R+¢&+ ÐCourt,€the€prosecutor€himself€admitted€that€the€only€prosecution€witness€against€Mr.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐNarrainen€acknowledged€in€court€to€have€been€pressed€by€the€investigating€officer€to€makeÐ -n(- Ða€false€and€incriminating€statement.€As€this€virtually€destroyed€the€probative€value€of€theÐ ° Ðprosecution's€case,€the€author€concludes€that€he€was€convicted€on€the€basis€of€racist€ideas€andÐ –æ Ðserious€errors€committed€by€the€investigating€authorities.Ð |Ì ÐÌ5.2€The€author€reiterates€that€several€factors€in€his€case,€including€the€gathering€and€theÐ H˜ Ðevaluation€of€evidence,€the€omission€of€important€statements€in€the€court€book,€the€absenceÐ . ~ Ðof€serious€preparation€of€his€defence€by€the€court„appointed€lawyers,€the€handling€of€hisÐ  d Ðappeal,€all€underline€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€and€impartial€hearing,€and€that€his€convictionÐ ú J Ðwas€based€on€racist€considerations.Ð à 0 ÐÔ_ÔÌòòThe€Committee's€admissibility€decisionóóÐ ¬ ü  ÐÌ6.1€During€its€forty„second€session,€in€March€1993,€the€Committee€examined€theÐ xÈ  Ðadmissibility€of€the€case.€It€duly€considered€the€State€party's€contention€that€the€author'sÐ ^®  Ðcomplaint€was€inadmissible€as€his€allegations€were€either€unsubstantiated€or€unfounded€butÐ D”  Ðconcluded€that€the€communication€satisfied€the€conditions€for€admissibility€laid€down€in€ruleÐ *z  Ð91€of€the€Committee's€rules€of€procedure.Ð ` ÐÌ6.2€On€16€March€1993,€the€Committee€therefore€declared€the€communication€admissible€inÐ Ü, Ðso€far€as€it€might€raise€issues€under€article€5€(a)€of€the€Convention.Ð Â ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€observations€on€the€merits€and€counsel's€commentsóóÐ ŽÞ ÐÌ7.1€The€State€party€dismisses€as€incorrect€the€author's€allegation€that€the€members€of€the€juryÐ Zª Ðin€his€trial€came€from€those€parts€of€Oslo€where€racism€is€rampant€and€that€they€had€neo„Ð @ ÐNazi€affiliations.€It€notes€that€the€list€of€jurors€in€the€case€was€drawn€up€in€accordance€withÐ &v Ðchapter€5€of€the€Courts€Act,€that€neither€prosecutor€nor€counsel€for€the€Ô_ÔdefenceÔ_Ô€objected€toÐ  \ Ðthe€way€the€list€was€drawn€up,€and€that€counsel€challenged€two€jurors€whose€names€appearedÐ òB Ðon€the€initial€list.€Six€of€the€jurors€came€from€areas€outside€Oslo,€and€four€from€differentÐ Ø( Ðparts€of€Oslo.€The€State€party€notes€that€no€part€of€Oslo€can€be€described€as€particularlyÐ ¾ Ðracist,€and€that€neither€the€courts€nor€the€Government€have€any€knowledge€about€theÐ ¤ô Ðaffiliation€of€jurors€with€political€parties.€However,€the€procedure€for€jury€selection€makesÐ Š Ú Ðit€unlikely€that€jurors€from€fringe€parties€will€be€chosen,€as€jurors€are€drawn€by€lot€from€listsÐ p!À  Ðthat€are€provided€by€municipal€politicians.Ð V"¦! ÐÌ7.2€As€to€the€impartiality€of€the€jurors,€the€State€party€reiterates€its€earlier€observation€(seeÐ "$r# Ðpara.€2.5€above).€It€adds€that€the€person€who€had€made€the€inimical€remarks€during€courtÐ %X $ Ðrecess,€Ms.€J.,€is€a€salaried€worker€who,€in€1990,€earned€less€income€than€the€author€receivedÐ î%>!% Ðin€terms€of€social€benefits€during€the€same€year.€In€these€circumstances,€the€State€partyÐ Ô&$"& Ðsubmits,€the€rather€general€remarks€of€Ms.€J.€were€"a€not€very€surprising€reaction€to€a€matterÐ º' #' Ðthat€must€have€seemed€unjust€to€her."Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ7.3€The€State€party€recalls€that€the€issue€of€whether€the€fact€that€the€remark€was€made€meantÐ l*¼%* Ðthat€Mr.€Ô_ÔNarrainenÔ_Ô€did€not€receive€a€fair€trial€was€examined€in€detail€by€the€InterlocutoryÐ R+¢&+ ÐAppeals€Committee€of€the€Supreme€Court€since,€under€section€360,€paragraph€2€lit.€3,€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐNorwegian€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure,€a€judgement€is€declared€null€and€void€by€theÐ -n(- ÐSupreme€court€if€it€is€found€that€one€of€the€jurors€was€disqualified.€According€to€the€StateÐ ° Ðparty,€the€fact€that€the€Interlocutory€Appeals€Committee€denied€leave€to€appeal€to€theÐ –æ ÐSupreme€Court€implies€that€the€Board€considered€it€obvious€that€there€were€noÐ |Ì Ðcircumstances€in€the€case€likely€to€impair€confidence€in€the€impartiality€of€Ms.€J.€It€is€notedÐ b² Ðthat€in€deciding€whether€leave€to€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€shall€be€granted€or€not,€theÐ H˜ ÐInterlocutory€Appeals€Committee€also€relies€on€international€instruments€such€as€theÐ . ~ ÐInternational€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination€asÐ  d Ðrelevant€sources€of€law.Ð ú J ÐÌ7.4€In€respect€of€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€the€case,€the€State€party€explains€the€rationaleÐ Æ   Ðfor€trying€cases€involving€crimes€punishable€with€imprisonment€of€six€years€or€more€at€firstÐ ¬ ü  Ðinstance€before€the€High€Court.€In€such€cases,€the€court€is€constituted€of€3€professionalÐ ’â  Ðjudges€and€a€jury€of€10;€the€jury€decides€on€the€question€of€guilt.€A€judgement€of€the€HighÐ xÈ  ÐCourt€may€be€appealed€to€the€Supreme€Court,€but€errors€in€the€evaluation€of€evidence€inÐ ^®  Ðrelation€to€the€question€of€guilt€are€not€permissible€grounds€of€appeal€(sect.€335,€para.€2,€ofÐ D”  Ðthe€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure).€The€State€party€explains€that€"it€is€important€that€serousÐ *z  Ðcriminal€cases€are€dealt€with€in€a€reassuring€manner€from€the€beginning.€This€is€why€suchÐ ` Ðcases€are€dealt€with€in€the€High€Court,€with€a€jury,€at€first€instance.€The€jury€decides€on€theÐ öF Ðguilt.€This€is€common€practice,€based€on€the€principle€that€a€defendant€shall€be€judged€byÐ Ü, Ðequals€...€This€principle€would€be€of€little€value€if€the€jury's€assessment€of€evidence€...€couldÐ Â Ðbe€overruled€by€the€professional€judges€in€the€Supreme€Court".Ð ¨ø ÐÌ7.5€As€to€the€admissibility€of€the€evidence€placed€before€the€High€Court€and€the€allegedÐ tÄ Ðpressure€exerted€by€the€police€on€witness€S.€B.€to€make€a€false€statement,€the€State€partyÐ Zª Ðrecalls€that€Norwegian€courts€assess€evidence€freely.€That€Mr.€Ô_ÔNarrainenÔ_Ô€was€convictedÐ @ Ðindicates€that,€in€the€case,€the€jurors€did€not€believe€S.€B.€when€he€retracted€his€earlierÐ &v Ðstatement€and€claimed€that€the€author€was€innocent.€In€this€context,€the€State€party€submitsÐ  \ Ðthat€the€most€likely€explanation€for€S.€B.'s€attitude€in€court€was€his€fear€of€reprisals€if€heÐ òB Ðupheld€his€earlier€statement;€it€notes€that€S.€B.,€himself€a€detainee€at€the€prison€of€Bergen,Ð Ø( Ðwas€placed€under€pressure€to€withdraw€his€initial€statement€at€around€the€time€the€authorÐ ¾ Ðhimself€arrived€at€the€prison,€and€that€he€was€afraid€of€reprisals.€Still€in€the€same€context,Ð ¤ô Ðthe€State€party€dismisses€as€incorrect€or€misleading€parts€of€the€author's€statementsÐ Š Ú Ðreproduced€in€paragraph€5.1€above.Ð p!À  ÐÌ7.6€The€State€rejects€as€incorrect€the€author's€claim€that€S.€B.€was€promised€a€reducedÐ <#Œ" Ðsentence€in€exchange€for€providing€incriminating€evidence€against€the€author,€as€neither€theÐ "$r# Ðpolice€nor€the€public€prosecutor€are€competent€to€engage€in€any€plea€bargaining€with€theÐ %X $ Ðaccused.€The€State€party€similarly€rejects€as€unfounded€the€author's€claim€that€S.€B.€wasÐ î%>!% Ð"promised€a€cosy€place€to€serve€his€sentence"€in€exchange€for€information€on€the€author:€inÐ Ô&$"& Ðfact,€S.€B.€was€confined€to€the€main€prison€for€the€Ô_ÔRogalandÔ_Ô€area,€where,€according€to€hisÐ º' #' Ðown€statement,€he€was€subjected€to€considerable€pressure€from€other€prisoners,€includingÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€author.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ7.7€Concerning€the€use€of€a€previous€conviction€as€evidence€against€Mr.€Ô_ÔNarrainenÔ_Ô,€the€StateÐ R+¢&+ Ðparty€submits€that€it€is€normal€under€Norwegian€criminal€law€to€admit€such€evidence,€andÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthat€there€is€absolutely€no€evidence€that€the€admission€of€the€evidence€had€any€connectionÐ -n(- Ðwith€the€author's€ethnic€origin.Ð ° ÐÌ7.8€With€regard€to€the€alleged€illegal€change€in€the€author's€indictment,€the€State€party€refersÐ |Ì Ðto€section€38,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure,€which€stipulates€that€"withÐ b² Ðregard€to€the€penal€provision€applicable€to€the€matter,€the€Court€is€not€bound€by€theÐ H˜ Ðindictment€...€The€same€applies€with€regard€to€punishment€and€other€sanctions€applicable."Ð . ~ ÐA€change€in€the€determination€of€which€provision€is€applicable€to€the€same€offence€can€alsoÐ  d Ðbe€made€by€the€prosecutor's€office€(sect.€254,€para.€3,€of€the€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure);Ð ú J Ðthis€is€what€occurred€in€the€author's€case.€The€State€party€explains€that€the€reason€why€theÐ à 0 Ðapplicable€provision€may€be€changed,€after€indictment€but€before€start€of€the€trial,€is€that€theÐ Æ   Ðdefendant€is€not€being€charged€with€a€new€offence;€it€is€simply€a€question€of€choosing€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðappropriate€provision€applicable€to€the€same€facts.Ð ’â  ÐÌ7.9€Finally,€as€to€the€duration€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔNarrainenÔ_Ô's€pretrial€detention,€the€State€party€reiteratesÐ ^®  Ðits€comments€detailed€in€paragraph€4.5€above.€As€to€the€quality€of€his€counsel,€it€recalls€thatÐ D”  Ðsince€the€author€"was€imprisoned€in€Oslo,€he€had€the€opportunity€to€choose€between€manyÐ *z  Ðhighly€qualified€lawyers".€It€explains€that€when€the€court€has€appointed€a€legal€aidÐ ` Ðrepresentative,€it€will€not€appoint€another€one€unless€asked€to€do€so€by€the€defendant;Ð öF Ðtherefore,€any€lawyer€assisting€Mr.€Ô_ÔNarrainenÔ_Ô€Ô_Ômust€have€been€chosen€pursuant€to€hisÐ Ü, Ðrequests.€The€State€party€concludes€that€there€is€no€reason€to€believe€that€Mr.€Narrainen€didÐ Â Ðnot€receive€the€same€legal€services€as€any€other€accused.€Rather,€he€was€given€everyÐ ¨ø Ðopportunity€to€request€a€new€representative€every€time€he€was€dissatisfied€with€his€previousÐ ŽÞ Ðone,€thereby€using€the€"safeguard€provisions"€of€the€criminal€procedure€system€to€the€full.Ð tÄ ÐÌ8.1€In€his€comments€on€the€State€party's€submission,€counsel€provides€detailed€informationÐ @ Ðabout€the€composition€of€juries€under€the€criminal€justice€system.€According€to€recentÐ &v Ðstatistics,€43€per€cent€of€foreign€nationals€residing€in€Norway€live€in€Oslo€or€neighbouringÐ  \ Ðboroughs.€Of€the€foreign„born€Norwegian€citizens€some€60,516,€of€whom€half€come€fromÐ òB ÐLatin€America,€Asia€and€Africa,€lived€in€Oslo.€Between€10€and€15€percent€of€all€personsÐ Ø( Ðliving€in€Oslo€have€cultural€and€ethnic€backgrounds€that€differ€from€the€rest€of€theÐ ¾ Ðpopulation.Ð ¤ô ÐÌ8.2€Counsel€observes€that€few€if€any€foreigners€or€foreign„born€Norwegians€figure€in€listsÐ p!À  Ðfrom€which€jury€members€are€selected.€Eidsivating€High€Court€was€unwilling€to€provide€himÐ V"¦! Ðwith€a€copy€of€the€jury€lists€from€the€Oslo€area,€on€the€ground€that€the€lists,€comprising€someÐ <#Œ" Ð4,000€names,€contain€private€data€that€should€not€be€made€public.€According€to€counsel,Ð "$r# ÐNorwegian€court€practice€clearly€shows€that€Norwegian€juries€are€all€white€„€in€interviewsÐ %X $ Ðwith€prosecutors,€lawyers€and€convicted€prisoners,€no€one€remembered€ever€having€met€aÐ î%>!% Ðcoloured€member€of€a€jury.€This€information€is€corroborated€by€a€newspaper€report,€datedÐ Ô&$"& Ð24€February€1994,€which€screens€the€lists€of€jurors€provided€by€the€city€of€Oslo.€It€states€thatÐ º' #' Ðout€of€2,306€individuals,€no€more€than€25€have€a€foreign€background,€and€most€of€theÐ  (ð#( Ðforeign€names€are€English,€German€or€American€ones.€It€further€notes€that€according€toÐ †)Ö$) Ðofficial€statistics,€38,000€foreign€nationals€aged€20€or€more€live€in€Oslo;€another€67,000Ð l*¼%* Ðpersons€were€either€born€abroad€or€have€foreign€parents.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ8.3€Counsel€notes€that€the€reason€for€the€lack€of€equal€representation€of€ethnic€groups€inÐ -n(- Ðjuries€may€be€explained€by€the€fact€that€local€political€parties€appear€reluctant€to€nominateÐ ° Ðmembers€of€such€groups€and€the€fact€that€five€years€of€residence€in€Norway€and€proficiencyÐ –æ Ðin€Norwegian€are€prerequisites€for€jury€duty.€Counsel€opines€that€this€situation€shouldÐ |Ì Ðprompt€the€Norwegian€high€courts€to€give€special€attention€to€ensuring€a€fair€trial€forÐ b² Ðcoloured€defendants.Ð H˜ ÐÌ8.4€As€to€the€alleged€impartiality€of€the€jurors,€counsel€subscribes€to€the€analysis€of€theÐ  d Ðallegedly€racist€remark€of€Ms.€J.€made€by€the€lawyer€who€appealed€on€the€author's€behalf€toÐ ú J Ðthe€Supreme€Court.€In€his€brief€to€the€Interlocutory€Appeals€Committee,€this€lawyer€argued,Ð à 0 Ðby€reference€to€section€135€(a)€of€the€Criminal€Code€which€prohibits€public€expressions€ofÐ Æ   Ðracism,€that€remarks€such€as€Ms.€J.'s€aimed€at€an€accused€person€are€particularlyÐ ¬ ü  Ðreprehensible€if€made€during€the€proceedings€in€front€of€a€member€of€the€audience,€and€ifÐ ’â  Ðmade€in€a€case€such€as€the€author's,€who€was€foreign„born.€To€this€lawyer,€Ms.€J.,€whenÐ xÈ  Ðrepeating€her€statement€from€the€witness€stand,€gave€the€clear€impression€of€harbouringÐ ^®  Ðracial€prejudices€against€persons€of€foreign€origin.€Ð D”  ÐÌ8.5€Counsel€further€doubts€that,€given€the€extremely€heavy€workload€of€the€InterlocutoryÐ ` ÐAppeals€Committee,€which€handles€an€average€of€16€cases€per€day,€the€Appeals€CommitteeÐ öF Ðreally€had€the€time€to€take€into€consideration€all€the€relevant€factors€of€the€author's€case,Ð Ü, Ðincluding€those€concerning€racial€discrimination€under€international€law.€He€further€notesÐ Â Ðthat€the€parties€are€not€represented€before€the€Interlocutory€Appeals€Committee,€which,Ð ¨ø Ðmoreover,€does€not€give€any€reasons€for€its€decision(s).Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ8.6€Concerning€the€evaluation€of€evidence€in€the€case,€counsel€notes€that€Mr.€Narrainen€wasÐ Zª Ðconvicted€on€the€basis€of€one€police€report€and€the€testimonies€of€the€police€officers€who€hadÐ @ Ðtaken€the€statement€of€S.€B.€That€this€lack€of€other€substantial€evidence€against€Mr.Ð &v ÐNarrainen€raised€doubts€about€his€guilt€was€demonstrated€by€the€fact€that€one€of€the€threeÐ  \ Ðjudges€in€the€case€found€that€the€guilt€of€the€accused€had€not€been€proven€beyond€reasonableÐ òB Ðdoubt.€Counsel€argues€that€it€cannot€be€excluded€that€some€of€the€jurors€had€similar€doubts;Ð Ø( Ðin€the€circumstances,€the€presence€in€the€jury€of€a€person€who€had€displayed€evidence€of€biasÐ ¾ Ðagainst€the€author€may€easily€have€tipped€the€balance.Ð ¤ô ÐÌ8.7€In€the€light€of€the€above,€counsel€claims€that€the€Norwegian€courts€violated€article€5€(a)Ð p!À  Ðof€the€Convention€through€the€judgement€of€the€High€Court€of€6€February€1991€and€theÐ V"¦! Ðdecision€of€the€Interlocutory€Appeals€Committee€of€7€March€1991.€While€the€juror's€remarkÐ <#Œ" Ðmay€not€in€itself€have€amounted€to€a€violation€of€the€Convention,€the€fact€that€Ms.€J.€was€notÐ "$r# Ðremoved€from€the€jury€constituted€a€violation€of€article€5€(a).€In€this€context,€counsel€refersÐ %X $ Ðto€the€Committee's€Opinion€in€the€case€of€ò òL.€K.€v.€Netherlandsó ó,€a/€€where€it€was€held€thatÐ î%>!% Ðthe€enactment€of€legislation€making€racial€discrimination€a€criminal€offence€does€not€in€itselfÐ Ô&$"& Ðrepresent€full€compliance€with€the€obligations€of€States€parties€under€the€Convention.Ð º' #' ÐÌ8.8€Counsel€concludes€that€the€way€in€which€Norwegian€juries€are€constituted€does€notÐ †)Ö$) Ðensure€racial€equality,€that€the€remark€made€by€Ms.€J.€to€another€juror€was€evidence€of€biasÐ l*¼%* Ðagainst€the€author€because€of€his€origin€and€colour,€and€that€neither€the€High€Court€nor€theÐ R+¢&+ ÐInterlocutory€Appeals€Committee€devoted€appropriate€attention€to€counsel's€claim€of€racialÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdiscrimination€or€properly€evaluated€the€possibility€of€a€violation€of€Norway's€obligationsÐ -n(- Ðunder€the€Convention.Ð ° ÐÌòòExamination€of€the€meritsóóÐ |Ì ÐÌ9.1€The€Committee€has€considered€the€author's€case€in€the€light€of€all€the€submissions€andÐ H˜ Ðdocumentary€evidence€produced€by€the€parties.€It€bases€its€findings€on€the€followingÐ . ~ Ðconsiderations.Ð  d ÐÌ9.2€The€Committee€considers€that€in€the€present€case€the€principal€issue€before€it€is€whetherÐ à 0 Ðthe€proceedings€against€Mr.€Narrainen€respected€his€right,€under€article€5€(a)€of€theÐ Æ   ÐConvention,€to€equal€treatment€before€the€tribunals,€without€distinction€as€to€race,€colour€orÐ ¬ ü  Ðnational€or€ethnic€origin.€The€Committee€notes€that€the€rule€laid€down€in€article€5€(a)€appliesÐ ’â  Ðto€all€types€of€judicial€proceedings,€including€trial€by€jury.€Other€allegations€put€forward€byÐ xÈ  Ðthe€author€of€the€communication€are€in€the€Committee's€view€outside€the€scope€of€theÐ ^®  ÐConvention.€Ð D”  ÐÌ9.3€If€members€of€a€jury€are€suspected€of€displaying€or€voicing€racial€bias€against€theÐ ` Ðaccused,€it€is€incumbent€upon€the€national€judicial€authorities€to€investigate€the€issue€and€toÐ öF Ðdisqualify€the€juror€if€there€is€a€suspicion€that€the€juror€might€be€biased.Ð Ü, ÐÌ9.4€In€the€present€case,€the€inimical€remarks€made€by€juror€Ms.€J.€were€brought€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðattention€of€the€Eidsivating€High€Court,€which€duly€suspended€the€proceedings,€investigatedÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€issue€and€heard€testimony€about€the€allegedly€inimical€statement€of€Ms.€J.€In€the€viewÐ tÄ Ðof€the€Committee,€the€statement€of€Ms.€J.€may€be€seen€as€an€indication€of€racial€prejudiceÐ Zª Ðand,€in€the€light€of€the€provision€of€article€5€(a)€of€the€Convention,€the€Committee€is€of€theÐ @ Ðopinion€that€this€remark€might€have€been€regarded€as€sufficient€to€disqualify€the€juror.Ð &v ÐHowever,€the€competent€judicial€bodies€of€Norway€examined€the€nature€of€the€contestedÐ  \ Ðremarks€and€their€potential€implications€for€the€course€of€the€trial.Ð òB ÐÌ9.5€Taking€into€account€that€it€is€neither€the€function€of€the€Committee€to€interpret€theÐ ¾ ÐNorwegian€rules€on€criminal€procedure€concerning€the€disqualification€of€jurors,€nor€toÐ ¤ô Ðdecide€as€to€whether€the€juror€had€to€be€disqualified€on€that€basis,€the€Committee€is€unableÐ Š Ú Ðto€conclude,€on€the€basis€of€the€information€before€it,€that€a€breach€of€the€Convention€hasÐ p!À  Ðoccurred.€However,€in€the€light€of€the€observations€made€in€paragraph€9.4,€the€CommitteeÐ V"¦! Ðmakes€the€following€recommendations€pursuant€to€article€14,€paragraph€7,€of€theÐ <#Œ" ÐConvention.Ð "$r# ÐÌ10.€The€Committee€recommends€to€the€State€party€that€every€effort€should€be€made€toÐ î%>!% Ðprevent€any€form€of€racial€bias€from€entering€into€judicial€proceedings€which€might€resultÐ Ô&$"& Ðin€adversely€affecting€the€administration€of€justice€on€the€basis€of€equality€and€non„Ð º' #' Ðdiscrimination.€Consequently,€the€Committee€recommends€that€in€criminal€cases€like€the€oneÐ  (ð#( Ðit€has€examined€due€attention€be€given€to€the€impartiality€of€juries,€in€line€with€the€principlesÐ †)Ö$) Ðunderlying€article€5€(a)€of€the€Convention.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌÌ_________Ð -n(- Ðà 4 àa/€€Communication€No.€4/1991€(ò òL.K.€v.€Netherlandsó ó),€Opinion€adopted€on€16€MarchÐ ° Ð1993,€paragraph€6.4.€Ð –æ ÐÓˆÓ