ÿWPC% «¬~¹u$êÕ5¡Þ°¼ÂÏŠÓNpº¦¸à<ìKáø‘od ™š o<¸§GL}‡‘3ž­Ðz.YŸ’\³tï¤üQ¹@úш§Ûý+JÌ]'¥Õ²‰hD‚m‡Ò|ºðŸ}S>Ô‡c®ÉÀ¨ô´^XQcuÇ»íÜø”™­d´—òjËTúò²¡-&áèÛœƒaËâ¿Ò3å.aK³(-6‘+Á¾–ß‹^|1o篪ý¿R]A̤rd­ìæhíS}à#pƒËjÞeD vÑ_)ûUîZ!è÷êr™‹§ê}˜ÕíÇ=Êáç[ˆåˇUp\zñÎ éJ¡ã\íJ%ìÝX¢[¡÷!©Ï|õJNY¸g£7xĽFcN»(Îi¸ a¶€êc ƒc îÄGkåv´‡[ør÷­[åWå™Q˜Ý"«Õ2%ÓõÂ\ÿzxSë[¡(´Gyt2"39ùaº+ÉåÿEÌÈ¡|.µ²4ŒU p¾O䩪î^,K ³“qã@›o2Éy? 6•Âeˆœ’¶"w‡Íý×Ìü DàrÆH5fÌ9sž]û.Õ¢˜YÅ|ÿÆð{Ìy%/©Vëþ¾ÉÞWØnnƒ“eÝÕ$ŒôWÎ —ªÙU>l̪ 0µv 0<+ 0Yg 0_À 0iƈ 0áN 0(/ D+W AM‚ Ï 0Æß #Á¥ UNf %´ Mº (¾ Næ ^ è wô 4ø   mô\  `‹&Times New Roman' O. F. v. Norway, Communication No. 158/1983 (26 October 1984), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 444oc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 44"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(¹2åL$££Ý ƒÕ‚!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X:ÏXXXÔÔ€X:ÏXXX:ÏÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(žÕ‚$¡¡ÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X!% Ðfurnish€information€to€an€official€register€about€a€business€firm€which€he€operated.€O.€F.Ð Ô&$"& Ðclaims€to€have€requested€a€postponement€of€the€case,€so€that€he€could€adequately€prepare€hisÐ º' #' Ðdefense,€but€that€such€postponement€was€denied.€He€claims€that€he€was€denied€adequateÐ  (ð#( Ðaccess€to€the€documents€of€the€court,€that€he€was€not€given€an€opportunity€to€assess€whetherÐ †)Ö$) Ðit€would€be€necessary€to€engage€a€lawyer€or€to€have€witnesses€called€on€his€behalf.€Further,Ð l*¼%* Ðhe€claims€that€the€method€of€the€court€to€deal€in€one€case€with€two€totally€unrelated€chargesÐ R+¢&+ Ðunjustly€affected€his€possibilities€to€defend€himself.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð1.3.€By€a€judgement€of€the€court€delivered€on€29€October€1982,€O.€F.€was€found€guilty€onÐ ° Ðboth€charges€and€sentenced€to€a€fine€of€Ô_ÔNKrÔ_Ô€1,000€or€10€days'€imprisonment.€He€was€alsoÐ –æ Ðsentenced€to€pay€the€costs€of€the€case,€Ô_ÔNKrÔ_Ô€1,000.€O.€F.€appealed€to€the€Supreme€Court,Ð |Ì Ðwhich€rejected€the€appeal€on€17€December€1982.€He€maintains€that€a€request€for€a€renewedÐ b² Ðhandling€of€the€case€was€also€rejected.€O.€F.€also€states€that€by€a€letter€from€the€SupremeÐ H˜ ÐCourt€dated€26€November€1982,€he€was€informed€that€"a€suspected€person€does€not€have€aÐ . ~ Ðlegal€right€to€borrow€case€documents".€Ð  d ÐÌ1.4.€In€a€further€letter€dated€27€October€1983,€the€author€stated€that€he€had€submitted€theÐ à 0 Ðsame€matter€to€the€European€Commission€of€Human€Rights€on€I€August€1983.€However,€theÐ Æ   ÐSecretariat€of€the€European€Commission€informed€him€by€letter€of€12€August€1983€that€theÐ ¬ ü  ÐEuropean€Commission€would€not€be€able€to€consider€his€case,€since€it€had€not€beenÐ ’â  Ðsubmitted€within€six€months€of€the€date€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies.Ð xÈ  ÐÌ2.€By€its€decision€of€9€November€1983,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€transmitted€theÐ D”  Ðcommunication€under€rule€91€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedure€to€the€State€party,Ð *z  Ðrequesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€of€admissibility€of€theÐ ` Ðcommunication.€Ð öF ÐÌ3.1.€By€a€note€dated€12€March€1984;€the€State€party,€òòinter€alia,€óóexplained€the€following€withÐ Â Ðrespect€to€the€facts€of€the€case:€Ð ¨ø ÐÌOn€27€July€1982€the€police€issued€an€òòordinary€óówrit€of€optional€fine.€comprising€the€countÐ tÄ Ðunder€the€Road€Traffic€Act€as€well€as€the€one€relating€to€the€Act€on€Statistics.€The€author€didÐ Zª Ðnot€accept€to€pay€the€fine.€In€a€letter€of€19€July€1982€the€author€asked€the€police€for€technicalÐ @ Ðinformation€about€the€control.€By€letter€of€26€July€the€police€informed€the€author€thatÐ &v Ðinformation€would€be€collected€from€the€police€officers€operating€the€radar€during€the€trafficÐ  \ Ðcontrol.€It€would€then€be€submitted€to€him€as€soon€as€it€was€available.€On€26€August€theÐ òB Ðauthor€was€contacted€by€a€police€officer€and€informed€that€he€could€come€to€the€policeÐ Ø( Ðstation€and€examine€all€documents€of€the€two€cases€there€in€order€to€prepare€his€defense.€TheÐ ¾ Ðauthor€answered€that€he€did€not€want€to€meet€at€the€police€station€and€asked€for€òòcopses€óóof€allÐ ¤ô Ðdocuments.€The€police€informed€him€that€this€request€would€not€be€met.€Ð Š Ú ÐÌOn€6€October€1982€the€author€was€summoned€to€the€main€hearing.€which€took€place€on€21Ð V"¦! ÐOctober€in€Bode€District€Court.€He€met€without€a€counsel€for€his€defense.€At€the€beginningÐ <#Œ" Ðof€the€hearing€he€requested€that€the€case€be€temporarily€dismissed€$o€that€he€could€properlyÐ "$r# Ðprepare€his€defense.€He€also€submitted€that€if€the€main€hearing€was€nevertheless€to€takeÐ %X $ Ðplace,€a€counsel€should€be€appointed€at€the€expense€of€the€State.€The€Court€did€not€acceptÐ î%>!% Ðthe€requests€made€by€the€author.€It€ruled€that€the€Criminal€Procedure€Act€did€not€give€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðaccused€the€right€to€obtain€copies€of€the€documents€and€there€was€no€reason€for€a€temporaryÐ º' #' Ðdismissal€of€the€case.€From€the€author's€appeal€of€23€November€1982€to€the€Supreme€CourtÐ  (ð#( Ð.€..€it€follows,€however,€that€the€hearing€was€suspended€for€a€quarter€of€an€hour€to€enable€himÐ †)Ö$) Ðto€read€the€documents€of€the€cross„examination.€Moreover,€the€Court€was€of€the€opinion€thatÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€joinder€of€the€two€counts€was€in€conformity€with€the€material€legislation.€Finally,€underÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€Criminal€Procedure€Act€he€was€not€entitled€to€a€defense€counsel€paid€by€the€State.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð3.2,€With€respect€to€the€relevant€domestic€legislation,€the€State€party€submits€thatÐ ° Ð[Ô_Ôa]ccordingÔ_Ô€to€the€Road€Traffic€Act€of€18€June€1965€section€5€everyone€is€obliged€to€observeÐ –æ Ðprohibitions€and€injunctions€in€pursuance€of€traffic€sips.€Under€section€31€violations€of€theÐ |Ì ÐAct€are€punishable€with€fines€or€imprisonment€up€to€one€year.€A€violation€is€regarded€as€aÐ b² Ðminor€offence€.€..€.€Under€section€31€b€the€police€may€issue€òòsummary€writs€óóof€optional€fineÐ H˜ Ðon€the€spot€to€persons€having€committed€minor€traffic€offences.€This€is€a€simplifiedÐ . ~ Ðprocedure;€for€instance,€a€brief€reference€to€the€applicable€penal€provision€and€the€facts€isÐ  d Ðsufficient.€The€summary€writ€of€optional€fine€must€be€accepted€on€the€spot.€If€this€is€notÐ ú J Ðdone€the€case€will€be€reported€to€the€police€station€and€an€òòordinary€óówrit€of€optional€fine€willÐ à 0 Ðnormally€be€issued€(under€the€Criminal€Procedure€Act€section€287),€describing€the€facts€ofÐ Æ   Ðthe€offence€with€reference€to€the€provisions€applicable.€Again€the€procedure€is€optional.€IfÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€accused€refuses€to€accept,€judgement€in€the€Court€of€first€instance€is€normally€requestedÐ ’â  Ðby€the€prosecuting€authorities.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌUnder€the€Act€of€25€April€1907€relating€to€the€procurement€of€specifications€to€the€OfficialÐ D”  ÐStatistics€section€1€private€employers€are€obliged€to€submit€information€requested€by€theÐ *z  Ðauthorities€in€conformity€with€a€decision€of€Parliament.€Anyone€who€without€valid€reasonÐ ` Ðfails€to€submit€such€information€is€subject€to€fines€(section€4).€In€the€present€case€theÐ öF Ðquestion€at€issue€was€the€duty€of€the€employer€to€fill€in€a€form...€requesting€informationÐ Ü, Ðabout€the€firm€and€send€it€to€the€register€of€enterprises€of€the€Central€Bureau€of€Statistics.€Ð  ÐÌThe€General€Penal€Code€of€22€May€1902€section€63€regulates€the€situation€when€somebodyÐ ŽÞ Ðhas€committed€more€than€one€offence€and€fines€are€applicable€for€both€or€all€offences.€TheÐ tÄ Ðcourt€shall€then€impose€one€single€fine€which€has€to€be€more€severe€than€the€one€applicableÐ Zª Ðas€a€result€of€each€offence.€Ð @ ÐÌ3.3.€With€respect€to€the€Norwegian€Reservation€to€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€InternationalÐ  \ ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€the€State€party€points€out€that€Ð òB ÐÌNorway€when€ratifying€the€Optional€Protocol€entered€a€reservation€to€article€5€{2)€"to€theÐ ¾ Ðeffect€that€the€Committee€shad€hot€have€competence€to€consider€a€communication€from€anÐ ¤ô Ðindividual€if€the€same€matter€has€already€been€mined€under€other€procedures€of€internationalÐ Š Ú Ðinvestigation€or€settlement".€Accordingly,€whereas€at„tide€5€(2}€(a}€prevents€simultaneousÐ p!À  Ðduplicating€procedures€òò(Ô_ÔpendenteÔ_Ô€lite)€óó....€the€reservation€sen€forth.€the€principle€of€òònon€Ô_ÔbisÔ_ÔÐ V"¦! Ðin€idem.óó€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌBefore€forwarding€his€communication€to€the€Committee€the€author€submitted€In€applicationÐ %X $ Ðto€the€European€Commission€of€Human€Rights,€which€is€clearly€another€procedure€ofÐ î%>!% Ðinternational€investigation€.€..€The€application€related€to€"the€same€matter"€as€the€presentÐ Ô&$"& Ðcommunication,€as€it€was€based€on€the€same€facts€and€referred€to€provisions€of€the€EuropeanÐ º' #' ÐConvention€corresponding€to€article€14€(3),€(a),€(b),€(d)€and€(e)€of€the€Covenant.€TheÐ  (ð#( Ðquestion€arises€therefore€whether€the€communication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€asÐ †)Ö$) Ðincompatible€òò(Ô_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ô)€óóunder€Article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€given€theÐ l*¼%* ÐNorwegian€reservation.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌThe€answer€depends€on€the€interpretation€of€the€words€"has€been€examined"€in€theÐ -n(- Ðreservation.€In€the€opinion€of€the€Government€one€can€hardly€argue€that€the€author's€case€hasÐ ° Ðbeen€òòexamined€óóby€the€European€Commission€of€Human€Rights.€In€fact,€the€Secretariat€of€theÐ –æ ÐCommission€merely€informed€him€that€he€had€failed€to€comply€with€the€six€months€time„Ð |Ì Ðlimit€under€article€26€of€the€Convention€...€Given€the€fact€that€in€the€present€case€there€wasÐ b² Ðnot€even€a€decision€on€inadmissability€the€Government€will€not€argue€that€theÐ H˜ Ðcommunication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€because€of€its€reservation.€It€was.€however,Ð . ~ Ðthought€useful€to€draw€the€attention€of€the€Committee€to€the€question.€Ð  d ÐÌ3.4.€On€the€question€of€admissibility,€the€State€party,€òòinter€alia,€óóobserves:€Ð à 0 ÐÌIn€relation€to€òòarticle€14€(3)(a)€óóthe€Government€are€unable€to€see€that€the€author€was€notÐ ¬ ü  Ðinformed€"promptly€and€in€detail€in€a€language€which€he€understands€of€the€nature€and€theÐ ’â  Ðcause€of€the€charge€against€him".€The€author's€communication€with€enclosure€contains€noÐ xÈ  Ðfacts€implying€a€violation€of€this€provision.€in€connection€with€the€traffic€control€the€authorÐ ^®  Ðwas€immediately€informed€by€the€two€police€officers€that€he€had€driven€at€63€km/h.€AÐ D”  Ðsummary€writ€of€optional€fine€on€the€spot,€which€he€did€not€accept,€also€contains€materialÐ *z  Ðinformation€relating€to€the€of€fence...€The€ordinary€writ€of€optional€fine€referred€to€theÐ ` Ðprovisions€of€the€Road€Traffic€Act€and€the€Act€on€Statistics€and€gave€a€brief€description€ofÐ öF Ðthe€facts€of€the€two€cases.€Also€when€the€author€was€summoned€to€(6€October€1982)€andÐ Ü, Ðappeared€in€court€(21€October€1982)€he€was€informed€of€the€nature€and€cause€of€the€chargeÐ Â Ðagainst€him.€Consequently,€it€is€the€opinion€of€the€Government€that€the€facts€of€the€case€doÐ ¨ø Ðnot€rinse€any€issue€under€article€14€(3)€(a)€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌòòArticle€14€óó(3)€(e)€gives€the€individual€the€right€to€"examine,€or€have€examined,€the€witnessesÐ Zª Ðagainst€him€and€to€obtain€the€attendance€and€examination€of€witnesses€on€his€behalf€underÐ @ Ðthe€same€conditions€as€witnesses€against€him".€Ð &v ÐÌAs€to€the€first€part€of€this€provision€the€facts€of€the€case€cannot€possibly€disclose€a€violationÐ òB Ðof€the€Covenant.€During€the€main€hearing€the€two€police€officers€carrying€out€the€trafficÐ Ø( Ðcontrol€met€as€witnesses.€The€author€has€stated€himself€(see€e.g.,€his€appeal€to€the€SupremeÐ ¾ ÐCourt€of€25€November€1982,€p.€4)€that€he€asked€several€questions€concerning€the€operationÐ ¤ô Ðof€the€radar€equipment,€to€which€the€witnesses€responded.€It€is€a€matter€of€fact€therefore€thatÐ Š Ú Ðthe€author€examined€the€witnesses€against€him€as€required€by€the€first€part€of€article€14€(3)Ð p!À  Ð(e).€Ð V"¦! ÐÌAs€regards€the€second€part€of€that€provision€it€should€first€be€noted€that€in€his€appeal€of€23Ð "$r# ÐNovember€1982...€the€author€considers€the€evidence€relating€to€the€traffic€signs,€given€by€theÐ %X $ Ðthird€witness€(an€engineer},€as€militating€strongly€in€his€Ô_ÔfavourÔ_Ô.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌSecondly,€during€the€preparation€of€the€main€hearing€the€author€had€the€right€underÐ º' #' ÐNorwegian€Law€(as€required€by€the€Covenant)€to€request€that€witnesses€be€summoned€on€hisÐ  (ð#( Ðbehalf.€It€is€a€matter€of€fact€that€he€never€used€this€right.€Consequently,€in€this€respect€heÐ †)Ö$) Ðcannot€allege€that€article€14€(3)€(e)€was€violated.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌWith€regard€to€òòarticle€14€(3)€pa),€óóit€seeing€from€the€enclosures€that€the€only€allegation€of€aÐ 8,ˆ', Ðviolation€made€by€the€author€is€based€on€the€fact€that€his€request€for€copies€of€all€documentsÐ -n(- Ðwas€refused€by€the€local€police,€and€that€he€consequently€was€denied€"adequate€time€andÐ ° Ðfacilities€for€the€preparation€of€his€defense".€Ð –æ ÐÌSubparagraph€(b)€does€not€explicitly€provide€for€a€right€of€the€accused€to€copies€ofÐ b² Ðdocuments€in€a€criminal€investigation.€A€general€right€for€the€accused€to€obtain€copies€in€allÐ H˜ Ðcircumstances€would€be€outside€the€wording€and€beyond€the€purpose€of€the€provision,€i.e.,Ð . ~ Ðto€secure€that€the€individual€has€a€real€opportunity€to€defend€himself€and€hence€get€a€fairÐ  d Ðtrial,€cf.€article€14€(I)€.€.€Ð ú J ÐÌThe€question€therefore€must€be„„as€stated€in€the€text€of€article€14€(3)€(b)€itself„„whether€theÐ Æ   Ðaccused€in€a€given€case€has€had€adequate€time€and€Ô_ÔradiitiesÔ_Ô€for€the€preparation€of€hisÐ ¬ ü  Ðdefense.€in€the€present€case€the€Government€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€requirements€of€articleÐ ’â  Ð14€(3)€(b)€were€met.€As€stated€above€the€author€was€offered€to€come€to€the€police€station€toÐ xÈ  Ðsee€the€documents€on€26€August€1982.€He€did€not€accept€this€offer.€For€almost€two€monthsÐ ^®  Ðhe€refrained€from€using€this€possibility.€The€author€was€working€about€I€km€from€the€policeÐ D”  Ðstation.€A€visit€would€have€caused€no€practical€difficulties.€With€his€car€he€could€also€easilyÐ *z  Ðhave€come€from€his€home,€a€distance€of€20„30€kin.€There€is€nothing€to€suggest€that€his€rightÐ ` Ðto€see€the€documents€at€the€police€station€would€have€been€ineffective.€The€access€of€accusedÐ öF Ðpersons€to€documents€is€a€well€established€practice€with€which€the€police€are€familiar.Ð Ü, ÐMoreover,€in€the€present€case€the€documents€were€uncomplicated€and€their€number€limited.Ð Â ÐòòFurtheróómore,€the€facts€relevant€to€the€two€penal€provisions€at€issue€{non„compliance€withÐ ¨ø Ðthe€duty€to€fill€in€a€form€and€exceeding€the€speed€limit)€were€easy€to€ms€for€the€purpose€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðpreparing€the€defenseÔ_Ô.Ô_ԀРtÄ ÐÌIf€the€author€had€examined€the€documents€at€the€police€station€he€would€have€had€a€preciseÐ @ Ðpicture€of€the€information€available€and€an€adequate€basis€for€the€further€preparation€of€hisÐ &v Ðdefense.€If€deemed€necessary€after€having€read€the€documents,€he€could€have€contacted€aÐ  \ Ðlawyer..€.€and€requested€for€additional€witnesses..€.€In€addition,€he€was€also€informed€aboutÐ òB Ðthe€charge€when€he€was€interrogated€hy€the€police€and€later€summoned€to€òòcourt.óó€Ð Ø( ÐÌTaking€all€these€elements€into€consideration€it€should€also€be€noted€that€the€hearing€wasÐ ¤ô Ðsuspended€(although€for€a€short€time}€to€enable€the€author€to€read€the€documents€when€heÐ Š Ú Ðraised€the€issue€at€the€beginning€of€the€main€hearing€in€the€District€òòCourt€....óó€Ð p!À  ÐÌEven€if€the€Criminal€Procedure€Act€does€not€provide€for€a€fight€of€the€accused€to€obtainÐ <#Œ" Ðcopies€of€the€documents€during€the€investigation,€unless€a€court€meeting€in€the€case€takesÐ "$r# Ðplace,€it€is€general€practice,€as€described€above,€that€the€documents€are€available€forÐ %X $ Ðexamination€by€the€accused€at€the€police€station€before€the€main€hearing.€This€òòpracticeÐ î%>!% Ðóóprobably€amounts€to€a€binding€legal€principle.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌAn€overall€evaluation€of€all€the€elements€of€the€present€case€leads€to€the€conclusion€that€theÐ  (ð#( Ðauthor€had€adequate€time€and€facilities€for€the€preparation€of€his€defence.€The€GovernmentÐ †)Ö$) Ðare€of€the€opinion€therefore€that€the€facts€of€the€case€do€not€raise€any€issue€under€article€4Ð l*¼%* Ð(3)€(b).€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌAs€far€as€òòarticle€14€(3)€(d)€óóis€concerned,€it€is€beyond€dispute€that€the€author€was€tried€in€hisÐ -n(- Ðpresence,€defended€himself€in€person€and€was€aware€of€his€right€to€be€defended€through€legalÐ ° Ðòòassistance.€óóConsequently,€it€is€presumed€that€the€author's€reason€for€invoking€this€provisionÐ –æ Ðmust€be€that€the€interest€of€justice€required€that€he€should€have€been€assigned€free€legalÐ |Ì Ðassistance.€The€fact€that€the€author€was€not€assigned€free€legal€assistance€must€be€seen€in€theÐ b² Ðlight€of€the€nature€of€the€of€fences€with€which€the€author€was€charged.€Both€charges€wereÐ H˜ Ðtrivial€and€ordinary€and€could€in€practice€only€lead€to€a€small€fine..€.€Ð . ~ ÐÌEven€if€the€accused€usually€has€no€right€to€òòfree€óólegal€assistance€in€minor€cases,€he€is€ofÐ ú J Ðcourse€(section€99€of€the€Criminal€Procedure€Act)€entitled€to€be€assisted€by€a€counsel€of€hisÐ à 0 Ðown€choice„„paid€by€himself„„at€any€stage€of€the€prosecution,€including€the€main€hearing€....€Ð Æ   ÐÌConsequently,€the€Government€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€facts€of€the€case€do€not€raise€anyÐ ’â  Ðissue€under€article€14€(3)€(d).€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ3.5.€For€the€reasons€explained€above€the€State€party€submits€that€the€author's€communicationÐ D”  Ðshould€be€declared€inadmissible€under€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ð *z  ÐÌ4.1.€In€response€to€the€State€party's€submission€under€rule€91,€the€author,€òòinter€alia,Ð öF Ðóóforwarded€the€following€comments€dated€8€April€1984:€Ð Ü, ÐÌIn€the€Government's€reply,€it€is€asserted€that€I€could€go€to€the€police€station€and€obtain€theÐ ¨ø Ðinformation€which€I€had€requested€and€needed€for€my€defense.€The€Government€knows€thatÐ ŽÞ Ðis€untrue.€On€5€April€1984€the€necessary€information€on€the€radar's€field€of€action€was€notÐ tÄ Ðyet€available.€This€was€confirmed€by€Police€Sergeant€E.,€by€telephone,€on€5€April€1984;€heÐ Zª Ðalso€said€that€the€Police€Chief,€W.,€was€opposed€both€to€this€information€being€obtained€fromÐ @ Ðthe€police€officers€operating€the€radar€and€to€my€being€given€this€information,€obviouslyÐ &v Ðfrom€fear€of€losing€face€if€the€police€should€once€again€lose€a€court€case€involving€radarÐ  \ Ðcontrol€brought€against€me€and€other€drivers.€E.€added€that€there€was€strong€antagonism€onÐ òB Ðthe€part€of€the€superior€officers€of€Bode€police€station...€Ð Ø( ÐÌIt€is€stated€that€I€asked€for€the€case€to€be€postponed,€but€not€why€I€did€so.€I€wanted€aÐ ¤ô Ðpostponement€firstly€because€I€had€not€been€able€to€prepare€my€defense€without€theÐ Š Ú Ðnecessary€information€and€documents,€although€these€had€been€promised€me€on€26€JulyÐ p!À  Ð1982,€and€also€because€during€the€brief€adjournment€of€about€15€minutes€which€was€grantedÐ V"¦! Ðin€order€to€allow€me€to€study€the€photocopies€of€some€documents€which€had€just€beenÐ <#Œ" Ðdistributed,€I€noticed€that€I€had€received€copies€which€were€so€dark€(overexposed)€that€it€wasÐ "$r# Ðquite€impossible€to€see€what€they€represented€....€Without€documents,€I€did€not€have€muchÐ %X $ Ðmaterial€to€give€a€lawyer€in€order€to€get€him€to€help€me.€It€is€only€when€I€saw€some€of€theÐ î%>!% Ðdocuments,€just€before€the€hearing,€that€I€received€confirmation€of€the€shortcomings€of€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðpolice's€case,€and€became€aware€of€my€small€possibilities€of€defense.€I€then€invokedÐ º' #' Ðparagraph€99€(1)€of€the€Criminal€Procedure€Act:€"the€accused€has€the€right€to€be€assisted€byÐ  (ð#( Ðcounsel€at€every€stage€of€the€proceedings".€This€too€was€refused,€without€the€judge€recordingÐ †)Ö$) Ðanything€in€this€connection.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌIt€is€stated,€under€point€2,€that€"anyone€who€without€valid€reason€fails€to€submit€suchÐ 8,ˆ', Ðinformation€(to€the€official€statistical€services)€is€subject€to€fines€(article€4)"..€.€.€Ð -n(- ЇIt€is€stated€that€the€Penal€Code€provides€for€the€joinder€of€several€offences.€This€is€true,€òòbutÐ ° Ðóóit€is€also€presumed€that€the€sentence€should€not€exceed€by€more€than€50€per€cent€theÐ –æ Ðmaximum€penalty€applicable€to€any€of€the€individual€offences:€this€was€not€observed€in€myÐ |Ì Ðcase.€See€Penal€Code,€paragraph€62€(1).€Ð b² ÐÌThe€maximum€sentence€{on€condition€of€having€been€found€liable€to€a€penalty)€should€haveÐ . ~ Ðbeen€"only"€a€fine€of€Ô_ÔNKrÔ_Ô.€900,€or,€in€case€of€non„payment€of€the€fine,€three€days'Ð  d Ðimprisonment.€The€sentence€was€a€fine€of€Ô_ÔNKrÔ_Ô.€1,000€or€10€days'€imprisonment.€This€isÐ ú J Ðcontrary€to€Norwegian€law,€and,€strangely€enough,€this€was€accepted€by€the€courtsÐ à 0 Ðconcerned!€Furthermore,€I€was€sentenced€to€pay€the€State€Ô_ÔNKrÔ_Ô.€1,000€legal€costs€(when€I€wasÐ Æ   Ðunable€to€defend€myself€satisfactorily)€....€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌMention€is€made€of€article€14€(3)€(e)€concerning€the€right€to€examine€the€witnesses€of€bothÐ xÈ  Ðparties.€I€wished€to€hear€the€statements€of€the€witnesses€of€the€State€Motor€VehicleÐ ^®  ÐOffice/Motor€Vehicle€Inspector€Service€and€the€State€Highway€Office,€concerning€the€trafficÐ D”  Ðsigns€on€the€spot€(the€Highway€Office€has€since€acknowledged€that€the€signposting€wasÐ *z  Ðdefective€and€has€changed€it)€and€to€obtain€an€opinion,€in€particular,€from€the€DefenseÐ ` ÐResearch€Institute€(FFI)€concerning€the€possible€reflection€of€the€radar€waves€on€a€busÐ öF Ðshelter€located€further€on.€For€this€purpose,€it€was€necessary€to€have€a€reply€or€photocopiesÐ Ü, Ðof€the€police€documents€of€the€òòcase,€as€óówell€as€the€technical€data€(which€have€still€not€beenÐ Â Ðprovided)€of€the€Radar€Control€Service€concerning€the€radar's€field€of€action€....€Ð ¨ø ÐÌTo€excuse€itself,€the€Government€then€argued€that€article€14€(3)€(d)€would€have€beenÐ tÄ Ðrespected€if€the€accused€had€had€a€lawyer.€No€reference€is€made€to€the€following€problem:Ð Zª Ðnot€everyone€can€obtain€the€help€of€a€lawyer,€which€is€difficult€either€for€economic€reasons,Ð @ Ðor€because€of€the€large€distances€in€the€remote€regions€of€Norway.€or€finally€because€privateÐ &v Ðindividual~lly€do€not€know€how€to€obtain€the€assistance€of€a€lawyer€....€Ð  \ ÐÌIt€is€stated€that€on€26€August€1982€I€was€invited€to€go€to€the€police€station€to€see€theÐ Ø( Ð(incomplete)€documents€of€the€case,€but€that€I€did€not€accept€that€invitation.€This€is€only€partÐ ¾ Ðof€the€truth.€In€fact,€it€was€I€who€telephoned€the€police;€first€of€all,€I€spoke€to€Police€ChiefÐ ¤ô ÐW.€and€asked€him€if€the€information€I€wanted€was€now€available;€he€did€not€answer€thisÐ Š Ú Ðquestion,€but€merely€transferred€the€call€to€Deputy€Chief€B.,€who€later€represented€the€PublicÐ p!À  ÐProsecutor€during€the€trial.€B.€told€me€that€W.€had€decided€that€I€should€òònot€óóreceive€theÐ V"¦! Ðinformation€I€requested,€despite€the€promise€that€had€been€made€me€in€writing€by€SergeantÐ <#Œ" ÐE.€on€26€July€1982€....€Ð "$r# ÐÌIt€is€then€asserted€that€this€was€a€simple€case€and€that€if€I€had€examined€the€documents€at€theÐ î%>!% Ðpolice€station€1€would€have€had€a€better€idea€of€the€information€available€and€therefore€aÐ Ô&$"& Ðbetter€basis€for€preparing€my€Ô_ÔdefenceÔ_Ô;€if€I€deemed€it€necessary,€I€could€have€contacted€aÐ º' #' Ðlawyer€and€asked€him€to€have€witnesses€appear.€In€my€opinion,€this€is€an€inadmissibleÐ  (ð#( Ðattempt€to€wriggle€out€of€a€situation€in€which€human€rights€have€been€violated.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ4.2.€The€author€concludes:€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌIt€cannot€be€denied€that€it€will€be€of€great€significance€both€for€me€and€for€countlessÐ -n(- ÐNorwegians€if€the€Committee€considers€that€there€have€been€violations€of€United€NationsÐ ° Ðconventions€and€if€it€criticizes€this€situation.€It€is€absolutely€unjust,€for€example,€that€a€policeÐ –æ Ðchief€can€fail€to€reply€to€important€requests€from€persons€against€whom€he€wishes€to€instituteÐ |Ì Ðproceedings€before€the€courts€and€that€such€behavior€should€be€accepted.€As€recently€asÐ b² ÐMarch€1984,€W.€did€everything€he€could€to€have€mc€serve€the€term€of€10€days'€imprisonmentÐ H˜ Ðand€rejected€all€my€requests€to€have€the€prison€sentence€suspended€until€a€decision€had€beenÐ . ~ Ðtaken€concerning€my€request€of€22€December€1983€for€the€reopening€of€the€case€on€the€oneÐ  d Ðhand,€and€until€the€United€Nations€Human€Rights€Committee€had€considered€myÐ ú J Ðcommunication,€on€the€other.€Ð à 0 ÐÌ5.1.€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ ¬ ü  ÐCommittee€shall,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€decideÐ ’â  Ðwhether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ5.2.€The€Committee€concurs€with€the€State€party€(see€pars.€3.3€above)€that€the€reservationÐ D”  Ðof€Norway€with€regard€to€article€5,€paragraph€2€(a),€of€the€Optional€Protocol€does€not€applyÐ *z  Ðin€the€present€case.€The€European€Commission€of€Human€Rights€has€not€"examined"€theÐ ` Ðfacts€of€the€case.€Its€Secretariat€merely€pointed€out€to€the€author€that€the€period€of€sixÐ öF Ðmonths,€within€which€applications€may€be€made€to€the€European€Commission€in€accordanceÐ Ü, Ðwith€article€26€of€the€European€Convention€on€Human€Rights,€had€already€expired.€As€aÐ Â Ðconsequence€the€case€was€not€even€registered€by€the€European€Commission€of€HumanÐ ¨ø ÐRights.€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ5.3.€The€Committee€has€carefully€considered€the€material€submitted€by€the€author,€but€isÐ Zª Ðunable€to€find€that€there€are€grounds€substantiating€his€allegations€of€violations€of€theÐ @ ÐCovenant.€Ð &v ÐÌ5.4.€With€regard€to€article€14,€paragraph€3€(a),€no€evidence€has€been€submitted€indicatingÐ òB Ðthat€the€author€was€not€'€'informed€promptly€and€in€detail€in€a€language€which€he€understandsÐ Ø( Ðof€the€nature€and€cause€of€the€charge€against€him."€Ð ¾ ÐÌ5.5.€With€regard€to€article€14,€paragraph€3€(b),€the€submissions€indicate€that€from€26€AugustÐ Š Ú Ðto€the€date€of€the€hearing€on€21€October€1982,€the€author€could€have€examined,€personallyÐ p!À  Ðor€through€his€lawyer,€documents€relevant€to€his€case€at€the€police€station.€He€chose€not€toÐ V"¦! Ðdo€so,€but€requested€that€copies€of€all€documents€be€sent€to€him.€The€Committee€notes€thatÐ <#Œ" Ðthe€Covenant€does€not€explicitly€provide€for€a€right€of€a€charged€person€to€be€furnished€withÐ "$r# Ðcopies€of€all€relevant€documents€in€a€criminal€investigation,€but€does€provide€that€he€shallÐ %X $ Ð"have€adequate€time€and€facilities€for€the€preparation€of€his€defense€and€to€communicateÐ î%>!% Ðwith€counsel€of€his€own€choosing."€Even€if€all€the€allegations€of€the€author€were€to€beÐ Ô&$"& Ðaccepted€as€proven,€there€would€be€no€ground€for€asserting€that€a€violation€of€article€14,Ð º' #' Ðparagraph€3€(b),€occurred.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ5.6.€With€regard€to€article€14,€paragraph€3€(d),€the€only€disputed€issue€in€this€case€is€whetherÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€author€should€have€been€assigned€free€legal€assistance.€The€Covenant€foresees€free€legalÐ R+¢&+ Ðassistance€to€a€charged€person€òò"in€óóany€case€where€the€interests€of€justice€so€require€andÐ 8,ˆ', Ðwithout€payment€by€him€in€any€such€case€if€he€does€not€have€sufficient€means€to€pay€for€it."Ð -n(- ÐThe€author€has€failed€to€show€that€in€his€particular€case€the€"interests€of€justice"€would€haveÐ ° Ðrequired€the€assignment€of€a€lawyer€at€the€expense€of€the€State€party.€Ð –æ ÐÌ5.7.€With€regard€to€article€14,€paragraph€3€(e),€the€submissions€indicate€that€the€author€wasÐ b² Ðable€to€question€witnesses€against€him€and€to€adduce€Ô_ÔfavourableÔ_Ô€witness€testimony.€TheÐ H˜ ÐCommittee€cannot€see€that€there€was€any€miscarriage€of€justice€in€this€respect.€Ð . ~ ÐÌ6.€In€the€light€of€its€observations€set€out€in€paragraphs€5.1€to€5.7€above,€the€Human€RightsÐ ú J ÐCorn„mince€concludes€that€no€facts€have€been€submitted€in€substantiation€of€the€author'sÐ à 0 Ðclaim€that€he€is€a€victim€of€violations€of€any€provisions€of€the€International€Covenant€onÐ Æ   ÐCivil€and€Political€Rights.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ7.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:€Ð xÈ  ÐÌThe€communication€is€inadmissible.€Ð D”  ÐÓÓ