ÿWPCƒ ÆQ?ÄËuÕÁLPû.àìm[ªÊ<ÐÉjÛeõkgC@¨õ«w¡ÿÓ\0Dý??€vÌòÛAç³ì› /'êµ®àÊʧo¯,Ì@m¯Ÿsÿí5{pßX™·Èÿ,5ÊÅ:Ò%áqR¾‹Q5pð{Ó½ê¢ÔT™âüÒ¾<„ØÀÈ ¸]fuªp[ƒQ—-‹½7¼ç›´\mÈÀ¿E)µa§3LX‘³ßCý¤L;ÁËn½$J ˜ÌmD¯ô¬þ)æ¾O‡#d˜…í2]gåÅ»¯ér1ݪ‹¡‚ðå¨ÔÈnN *Ô4Zõõ¥,‹N±rZ@V˜mQ%aç~û˜Ä ²? âú>zMO­út~ö8Y¦”‰ÌÈñ§G½”óÔ+”Þ™p eL·-ÜÙC]ÔÉ¡Ž>„]êgª¾š!ê·$lN—),¿®®µ£„[tÞ.JL e³G‹o~pq6ØÚ’ŒDíBl6 “äxÙ_•ózJ£Šàæøôì¹»ÅyF¡ñзüʧÇÚîìÜÎB‡€Þï†ÚlÅæôÅ+ 2æ¼f^4þøíDHé)„‚Väu¶]îJÍé÷Ûw–V jj×Bm! xN ±9²F—@YAQU>z̸ 0µ„ 0<9 0Yu 0_Î 0i- 0P–Ææ 0ᬠ0( D+µ AMà - 0Æ= #Á UNÄ %M(ND^ FwR4Vj mlô\  `‹&Times New Roman' A. and S. N. v. Norway, Communication No. 224/1987 (11 July 1988), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 4N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 "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 =jSÓ0ÿÿ.Strongò òÔ  Ôó óÔ  Ô Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2.L$££Ý ƒ¶ !ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xe_XXXÔÔ€Xe_XXXe_ÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ž¶ $¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X}XXXÔÔ€X}XXX}ÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÙØÙÙØÈÙ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX®¬{) K‹k)ê:i¢Ø+00ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ¶ !ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xe_XXXÔÔ€Xe_XXXe_ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòA.€and€S.€N.€v.€NorwayóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€224/1987Ð H˜ ÐÌ11€July€1988Ð  d ÐÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€by:óó€A.€and€S.€N.€[names€deleted]€Ð xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victim:óó€The€authors€and€their€daughter€S.€Ð D”  ÐÌòòState€party€concerned:óó€Norway€Ð ` ÐÌòòDate€of€communication:€óó9€March€1987€(date€of€initial€letter)€óóÐ Ü, ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committee,€óóestablished€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ ŽÞ Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð tÄ ÐÌòòMeeting€óóon€11€July€1988,€Ð @ ÐÌòòAdopts€óóthe€following:€Ð  \ ÐÌÌòòÓ  Óò òDecision€on€admissibilityóó€ó óÐ ¾ ÐÓðÓÌÌ1.€The€authors€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€of€9€March€1987€and€further€letters€of€10Ð p!À  ÐSeptember€1987€and€5€April€1988)€are€A.€and€S.€N.,€Norwegian€citizens€residing€in€Ô_ÔAlesundÔ_Ô,Ð V"¦! Ðwriting€on€their€own€behalf€and€on€behalf€of€their€daughter€S.€born€in€1981.€They€claim€toÐ <#Œ" Ðbe€victims€of€a€violation€by€Norway€of€article€18,€paragraphs€1,€2€and€4,€and€article€26€of€theÐ "$r# ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€They€are€represented€by€counsel.€Ð %X $ ÐÌ2.1€The€authors€state€that€the€Norwegian€Day€Nurseries€Act€of€1975€as€amended€in€1983Ð Ô&$"& Ðcontains€a€clause€providing€that€"the€day€nursery€shall€help€to€give€the€children€anÐ º' #' Ðupbringing€in€harmony€with€basic€Christian€values".€The€authors€are€non„believers€andÐ  (ð#( Ðactive€members€of€Norway's€Humanist€and€Ethical€Union.€They€object€to€the€fact€that€theirÐ †)Ö$) Ðdaughter,€who€attended€the€Ô_ÔVestbyenÔ_Ô€Day€Nursery€in€Ô_ÔAlesundÔ_Ô€from€the€autumn€of€1986€toÐ l*¼%* ÐAugust€1987,€has€been€exposed€to€Christian€influences€against€their€will.€The€ChristianÐ R+¢&+ Ðobject€clause€does€not€apply€to€privately„owned€nurseries,€but€the€authors€state€that€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ð10€nurseries€in€Ô_ÔAlesundÔ_Ô,€nine€are€owned€and€run€by€the€Municipal€Council,€and€manyÐ -n(- Ðparents€have€no€alternative€but€to€send€their€children€to€these€nurseries.€The€authors€quoteÐ ° Ðfrom€the€1984€Regulations€issued€by€virtue€of€the€Day€Nurseries€Act€and€from€theÐ –æ ÐGuidelines€for€implementing€the€object€clause€of€the€Day€Nurseries€Act",€which€read€in€part:Ð |Ì Ð"the€Christian€festivals€are€widely€celebrated€in€our€culture.€Therefore,€it€is€natural€that€dayÐ b² Ðnurseries€should€explain€the€meaning€of€these€festivals€to€the€children€...€Christian€faith€andÐ H˜ Ðteachings€should€play€only€a€minor€role€in€everyday€life€at€the€day€nursery."€The€HumanistÐ . ~ Ðand€Ethical€Union,€an€organization€of€believers,€has€raised€strong€objections€against€the€DayÐ  d ÐNurseries€Act€and€its€implementing€regulations.€Ð ú J ÐÌ2.2€In€the€present€case,€S.'s€parents€object€that€when€she€first€attended€the€day€nursery,€graceÐ Æ   Ðwas€sung€at€all€meals.€On€taking€the€matter€up€with€the€day€nursery€staff,€they€were€told€thatÐ ¬ ü  Ðtheir€daughter€did€not€have€to€sing€with€the€other€children,€but€the€parents€argue€that€it€wouldÐ ’â  Ðhave€been€difficult€for€a€six„year„old€child€not€to€do€the€same€things€as€all€the€other€children.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ2.3€The€parents€claim€that€the€Day€Nurseries€Act,€in€conjunction€with€its€Regulations€andÐ D”  ÐGuidelines,€and€the€ensuing€practice€are€inconsistent€with€article€18,€paragraph€4,€of€theÐ *z  ÐCovenant,€which€requires€States€parties€to€respect€the€liberty€of€parents€to€give€their€childrenÐ ` Ða€religious€and€moral€upbringing€in€accordance€with€their€own€convictions.€Moreover,€theyÐ öF Ðrefer€to€article€26€of€the€Covenant,€which€provides€that€legislation€shall€prohibit€all€formsÐ Ü, Ðof€discrimination€and€shall€secure€for€everyone€equal€and€effective€protection€againstÐ Â Ðdiscrimination€on€grounds€of,€among€other€things,€religion.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ2.4€With€respect€to€the€requirement€of€the€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies€under€article€5,Ð tÄ Ðparagraph€2€(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€authors€rely€on€their€understanding€that€thisÐ Zª Ðrequirement€"shall€not€be€enforced€in€cases€where€employing€such€remedies€would€take€anÐ @ Ðunreasonably€long€time".€They€state€that€they€have€not€submitted€their€complaint€to€anyÐ &v ÐNorwegian€court€and€claim€that€there€are€no€effective€remedies€available,€since€S.€wouldÐ  \ Ðonly€attend€day€nursery€until€August€1987.€Moreover,€they€doubt€whether€"the€UnitedÐ òB ÐNations€Covenant€would€be€applied€to€this€national€issue€by€a€Norwegian€court€of€law.Ð Ø( ÐTherefore€it€would€be€a€waste€of€time€and€money,€and€also€an€extra€strain€on€complainants,Ð ¾ ÐIf€the€issue€were€first€to€be€tried€before€Norwegian€courts".€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ2.5€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€ascertained€that€the€same€matter€is€not€beingÐ p!À  Ðexamined€under€another€procedure€of€international€investigation€or€settlement.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌ3.€By€a€decision€of€8€April€1987,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€transmitted€theÐ "$r# Ðcommunication€under€rule€91€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedure€to€the€State€party,Ð %X $ Ðrequesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€of€the€admissibility€of€theÐ î%>!% Ðcommunication.€On€23€October€1987,€the€Committee's€Working€Group€adopted€a€secondÐ Ô&$"& Ðdecision€under€rule€91,€requesting€the€State€party€to€provide€more€specific€informationÐ º' #' Ðconcerning€the€remedies€available€to€the€authors.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ4.1€In€its€initial€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€14€July€1987,€the€State€party€objects€to€theÐ l*¼%* Ðadmissibility€of€the€communication€on€the€grounds€that€the€authors€have€completely€by„Ð R+¢&+ Ðpassed€domestic€administrative€and€judicial€remedies€and€that€the€exception€provided€for€inÐ 8,ˆ', Ðarticle€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol€does€not€apply€in€the€present€case.€Ð -n(- Ї4.2€The€State€party€points€out€that€the€requirement€of€article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€is€based€onÐ ° Ðboth€practicality€and€the€principle€of€State€sovereignty.€The€authors€of€the€communication,Ð –æ Ðhowever,€have€not€submitted€their€case€to€any€Norwegian€court.€It€is€open€to€them€toÐ |Ì Ðchallenge€the€application€of€the€Day€Nurseries€Act€and€Regulations€in€the€District€and€CityÐ b² ÐCourt€in€the€first€instance,€the€High€Court€(Appeals€Division)€in€the€second€instance€andÐ H˜ Ðfinally€the€Supreme€Court€in€the€third€instance.€Subject€to€permission€being€granted€by€theÐ . ~ ÐSupreme€Court's€Appeals€Selection€Committee,€the€case€could€be€appealed€directly€from€theÐ  d ÐDistrict€and€City€Court€to€the€Supreme€Court.€Such€permission€may€be€granted€if€the€issueÐ ú J Ðis€considered€to€be€of€general€importance€or€if€particular€reasons€suggest€that€a€quickÐ à 0 Ðdecision€is€desirable.€Ð Æ   ÐÌ4.3€As€to€the€authors'€specific€complaint,€the€State€party€notes€that€such€a€case€would€takeÐ ’â  Ðapproximately€four€months€from€the€writ€of€summons€to€the€main€hearing€by€the€Ô_ÔAlesundÔ_ÔÐ xÈ  ÐDistrict€and€City€Court.€To€bring€a€suit€through€all€court€instances€would€normally€take€threeÐ ^®  Ðto€four€years,€although€this€period€would€be€shortened€considerably€if€the€Supreme€CourtÐ D”  Ðshould€grant€a€direct€appeal.€Accordingly,€the€State€party€submits€that€the€exhaustion€ofÐ *z  Ðdomestic€remedies€in€Norway€would€not€be€unreasonably€prolonged€and€that€the€authorsÐ ` Ðcould€at€the€very€least€have€brought€the€matter€before€the€court€of€first€instance.€Moreover,Ð öF Ðthe€State€party€observes€that€the€authors'€objection€that€their€daughter€would€be€out€of€theÐ Ü, Ðday€nursery€by€the€time€of€the€final€judgement€and€that€therefore€it€would€be€futile€to€go€toÐ Â Ðthe€courts€equally€applies€to€an€eventual€decision€by€the€Human€Rights€Committee€and€itsÐ ¨ø Ðpossible€incorporation€into€Norwegian€law€and€practice.€Thus,€the€State€party€concludes€thatÐ ŽÞ Ðthere€is€no€urgency€that€could€justify€by„passing€domestic€remedies€and€appealing€directlyÐ tÄ Ðto€the€Human€Rights€Committee.€Ð Zª ÐÌ4.4€In€its€further€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€24€February€1988,€the€State€party€explainsÐ &v Ðthat€"everyone€having€a€'legal€interest'€may€bring€his/her€case€before€the€ordinary€courts€inÐ  \ Ðorder€to€test€the€legality€of€any€act,€i.e.€also€the€Day€Nurseries€Act.€This€opportunity€was€alsoÐ òB Ðopen€to€the€complainants€when€they€decided€in€the€spring€of€1987€to€submit€the€matterÐ Ø( Ðdirectly€to€the€Human€Rights€Committee."€Ð ¾ ÐÌ4.5€The€State€party€further€reiterates€that€the€Norwegian€courts€have€given€considerableÐ Š Ú Ðweight€to€international€treaties€and€conventions€in€the€interpretation€of€domestic€rules,€evenÐ p!À  Ðif€these€instruments€have€not€been€formally€incorporated€into€domestic€law.€It€points€toÐ V"¦! Ðseveral€Supreme€Court€decisions€concerning€the€relationship€between€international€humanÐ <#Œ" Ðrights€instruments€and€domestic€law€and€concerning€possible€conflicts€between€theÐ "$r# ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€and€domestic€statutes.€Although€theÐ %X $ ÐSupreme€Court€has,€in€these€cases,€ruled€that€there€was€no€conflict€between€domestic€lawÐ î%>!% Ðand€the€relevant€international€instrument,€it€has€expressed€clearly€that€international€rules€areÐ Ô&$"& Ðto€be€taken€into€consideration€in€the€interpretation€of€domestic€law.€In€this€context,€the€StateÐ º' #' Ðparty€reiterates€that€"the€possibility€of€setting€aside€a€national€statute€altogether€on€theÐ  (ð#( Ðgrounds€of€conflict€with€the€Covenant€cannot€be€disregarded"€and€emphasizes€that,€in€everyÐ †)Ö$) Ðcase€in€which€international€human€rights€instruments€have€become€relevant,€the€SupremeÐ l*¼%* ÐCourt€has€taken€a€decision€on€the€issue€of€conflict€between€a€domestic€statute€and€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðinternational€instrument€and€not€refused€to€test€it.€In€a€recent€case,€for€example,€"the€questionÐ 8,ˆ', Ðwas€whether€a€private€school€for€educating€social€workers€owned€by€a€Christian€foundationÐ -n(- Ðwas€allowed€to€ask€job€applicants€(future€teachers)€about€their€religious€beliefs.€In€that€case,Ð ° Ðthe€court€expressed€a€clear€opinion€on€the€legal€relevance€of€the€international€rules€whenÐ –æ Ðinterpreting€domestic€law..€The€first€voting€judge,€who€was€supported€by€a€unanimous€court,Ð |Ì Ðstated:€'I€do€not€find€it€questionable€that€the€convention€(ILO€Convention€No.€111)€must€beÐ b² Ðgiven€weight€in€the€interpretation€of€section€55€A€of€the€Working€Environment€Act€of€1977'.Ð H˜ ÐThe€further€vote€also€shows€that€the€convention€is€given€considerable€attention€and€weight."Ð . ~ Ðòò(Norsk€Ô_ÔRettstidendeÔ_Ô€1986,€óópp.€1,250€if.)€Ð  d ÐÌ4.6€In€the€light€of€the€above€observations,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€authors€would€haveÐ à 0 Ðstood€a€good€chance€of€testing€the€compatibility€of€the€Day€Nurseries€Act€with€the€CovenantÐ Æ   Ðbefore€the€Norwegian€courts.€Thus,€they€could€have€invoked€the€Covenant€and€asked€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðcourts€to€interpret€the€Act€in€the€light€of€it€and€to€declare€the€Christian€object€clause€invalidÐ ’â  Ðas€incompatible€with€it.€Moreover,€they€could€have€argued€that€the€Act€was€in€conflict€withÐ xÈ  Ðarticle€2€(1)€of€the€Norwegian€Constitution,€under€which€"all€inhabitants€of€the€KingdomÐ ^®  Ðshall€have€the€right€to€free€exercise€of€their€religion".€In€the€interpretation€of€this€provision,Ð D”  Ðinternational€human€rights€instruments€would€be€important€elements€to€be€considered€by€theÐ *z  Ðjudge.€Ð ` ÐÌ5.1€On€10€September€1987€and€5€April€1988,€the€authors€forwarded€their€comments€in€replyÐ Ü, Ðto€the€State€party's€observations€on€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€Ð  ÐÌ5.2€The€authors€contest€the€State€party's€argument€that€the€communication€is€inadmissableÐ ŽÞ Ðon€the€grounds€of€non„exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies.€They€state€that,€while€theÐ tÄ ÐNorwegian€Government€contends€that€they€should€have€submitted€their€case€to€the€domesticÐ Zª Ðcourts,€their€main€argument€is€that€the€domestic€courts€would€be€an€inappropriate€forum€toÐ @ Ðdecide€the€issue€at€stake.€They€stress€that€they€have€not€argued€that€the€practice€followed€byÐ &v ÐNorwegian€day€nurseries€is€in€conflict€with€the€Day€Nurseries€Act€and€its€by„laws,€but€withÐ  \ Ðinternational€human€rights€instruments.€Ð òB ÐÌ5.3€The€authors€maintain€that€it€would€be€possible€to€have€their€case€dealt€with€by€theÐ ¾ ÐHuman€Rights€Committee€without€testing€it€first€in€the€Norwegian€courts.€They€claim€thatÐ ¤ô Ðthe€Supreme€Court€decisions€referred€to€by€the€State€party€in€its€submission€of€24€FebruaryÐ Š Ú Ð1988€are€irrelevant.€Ð p!À  ÐÌ5.4€The€authors€conclude€that€no€practical€measures€have€been€implemented€by€theÐ <#Œ" ÐNorwegian€authorities€to€ensure€that€children€from€non„Christian€families€are€not€exposedÐ "$r# Ðto€Christian€influences€since,€despite€strong€efforts€on€their€part,€they€did€not€succeed€inÐ %X $ Ðpreventing€such€influences€in€their€daughter's€case.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ6.1€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ º' #' ÐCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€decideÐ  (ð#( Ðwhether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ6.2€The€Committee€observes,€in€this€respect,€that€the€authors€have€not€pursued€the€domesticÐ R+¢&+ Ðremedies€which€the€State€party€has€submitted€were€available€to€them.€It€notes€the€authors'Ð 8,ˆ', Ðdoubts€whether€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€would€be€taken€intoÐ -n(- Ðaccount€by€Norwegian€courts,€and€their€belief€that€the€matter€could€not€be€satisfactorilyÐ ° Ðsettled€by€a€Norwegian€court.€The€State€party,€however,€has€submitted€that€the€CovenantÐ –æ Ðwould€be€a€source€of€law€of€considerable€weight€in€interpreting€the€scope€of€the€ChristianÐ |Ì Ðobject€clause€and€that€the€authors€would€have€stood€a€reasonable€chance€of€challenging€theÐ b² ÐChristian€object€clause€of€the€Day€Nurseries€Act€and€the€prevailing€practice€as€to€theirÐ H˜ Ðcompatibility€with€the€Covenant€had€they€submitted€the€case€to€the€Norwegian€courts;€theÐ . ~ ÐCommittee€notes€further€that€there€was€a€possibility€for€an€expeditious€handling€of€theÐ  d Ðauthors'€case€before€the€local€courts.€The€Committee€finds,€accordingly,€that€the€pursuit€ofÐ ú J Ðthe€authors'€case€before€Norwegian€courts€could€not€be€deemed€òòa€priorióó€futile€and€that€theÐ à 0 Ðauthors'€doubts€about€the€effectiveness€of€domestic€remedies€did€not€absolve€them€fromÐ Æ   Ðexhausting€them.€Thus,€the€requirements€of€article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€OptionalÐ ¬ ü  ÐProtocol€have€not€been€met.€Ð ’â  ÐÌ7.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:€Ð ^®  ÐÌ(a)€That€the€communication€is€inadmissible;€Ð *z  ÐÌ(b)€That€this€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€authors€of€the€communication€and€to€theÐ öF ÐState€party.€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô