Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06OSLO403
2006-03-31 16:38:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Oslo
Cable title:  

NORWAY PRESENTS ITS LEGAL VIEWS ON DETAINEES

Tags:  PREL KPAO PHUM OPDC PTER NO 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0027
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNY #0403/01 0901638
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 311638Z MAR 06
FM AMEMBASSY OSLO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3718
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3719
C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000403 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR L

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/31/2016
TAGS: PREL KPAO PHUM OPDC PTER NO
SUBJECT: NORWAY PRESENTS ITS LEGAL VIEWS ON DETAINEES

REF: STATE 26147

Classified By: Pol/Econ Counselor Mike Hammer, Reason 1.4 b and d.

C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000403

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR L

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/31/2016
TAGS: PREL KPAO PHUM OPDC PTER NO
SUBJECT: NORWAY PRESENTS ITS LEGAL VIEWS ON DETAINEES

REF: STATE 26147

Classified By: Pol/Econ Counselor Mike Hammer, Reason 1.4 b and d.


1. (C) MFA DAS Leif Larsen summoned P/E counselor on March
31 to receive a note outlining Norway's official legal
position on detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere (full text
provided para 5). After only a cursory reading of the note,
P/E Counselor reiterated our position on detainees (reftel).


2. (C) Foreign Minister Jonas Stoere has previously told us
that he fully supports the fight against terrorism. The
Foreign Minister also accepts the right of the United States,
and any other country for that matter, to defend itself
against terrorists but fundamentally believes such action
must be grounded in international law. Speaking as a friend,
Stoere (formerly the head of the Norwegian Red Cross) has
expressed his concern that the U.S. hurts its ability to go
after terrorists and its image by not applying international
law appropriately.


3. (C) Beyond the Minister's own personal conviction that
we could be handling the issue of detainees better, Norway's
left-of-center government wants to be on record opposing how
we have handled detainees given that it is a hot-button
political issue and that they feel that the prior
right-of-center government failed to register concerns with
us. Larsen said that the MFA does not intend to make the
note public but that, if asked, the MFA will state that it
has made Norway's legal position clear to us. We would not
be surprised, however, if the text does become public at some
point as the MFA's political leadership will want it known
that it has "protested" our treatment of detainees and
provided us its interpretation of international law. The
note does not request a reply.


4. (C) Comment. The Guantanamo detainee issue continues to
be a hot topic here; just today Norway's paper of record
Aftenposten ran a story interviewing three men who were held
at Guantanamo. We would welcome a visit by Legal Adviser
John Bellinger, or other USG senior official, to help us with

the public diplomacy message. Despite our best efforts,
there seems to be little to no understanding of the U.S.
legal position.


5. Begin text of Norwegian note:

Norway's position on key legal issues concerning protection
of detainees in the struggle against terrorism


1. Transnational terrorist attacks constitute not only a
menace to peace and security, human rights and democratic
values. They also defy and threaten human dignity.
Governments must take coherent and united action in order to
prevent such attacks, to remove bases of support to terrorist
networks and to bring perpetrators of such attacks to
justice. International law is essential for effective action
in this regard.


2. Norway believes that the determination of the status,
rights and treatment of persons detained in relation to acts
of transnational terrorism also has a bearing on the
long-term effectiveness of the fight against terrorism. This
includes the situation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, which
has been criticized over an extended period of time. Legal
classifications and the language utilized in the
interpretation of treaty obligations are important. They
should not only contribute to legal certainty, but ensure the
preservation of the essential values and interests protected
by the law of armed conflict and other international rules
aimed at protecting basic human dignity in warfare.


3. The increasingly asymmetrical nature of the threat posed
by certain groups engaged in armed conflict and other forms
of violence may give rise to new legal challenges. These may
include the determination of the legal status of persons
detained, the scope of certain procedural rules and the
extent to which there may be an overlap between international
humanitarian law, on the one' hand, and human rights law, on
the other. Irrespective of such issues, Norway is of the view
that the fundamental safeguards for persons deprived of
liberty cannot be open to doubt. They are part of the legal
framework applicable in situations of international armed
conflict, of non-international armed conflict and when
violence cannot be classified as an armed conflict. These are
the only three possible legal qualifications of situations of
violence under international law.

4. As regards certain legal interpretations that have been
made with respect to the application of international law in
the fight against terrorism Norway would like to reassert the
following:

International law, based on treaties or customary law, is
binding on all states. It not only specifies States' rights
and obligations in a given situation, but also provides a
common ground for interpreting what the respective rights and
obligations are. Adherence to international law is also
premised on a shared understanding that it is in each State's
interest to abide by the law, allowing, for example, a State
to demand the protections provided for by humanitarian law to
members of its armed forces detained by an adversary, whether
in international or non-international armed conflict.

In accordance with Article 2 common to the 1949 Geneva
Conventions the existence of an armed conflict between States
is decisive for the application of the Conventions ("In
addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in
peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of
declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise
between two or more of the High Contracting Parties"). When
triggered, the Conventions apply to all persons involved in
an international armed conflict, including also members of
irregular forces and members of non-State armed groups. The
situation in Afghanistan was initially an international armed
conflict within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions. To
state that the Conventions apply does not, however, mean that
Al-Qaida members, for example, are entitled to prisoner of
war (POW) status. It only means that their protection and
rights must be determined under international humanitarian
law. It can be argued that the ongoing hostilities in
Afghanistan may be classified as a non-international armed
conflict, as they no longer involve the armed forces of
opposing States Parties to the Conventions.

Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that
"should any doubt arise" as to whether a person is entitled
to POW status, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of
the present Convention until such time as their status has
been determined by a competent tribunal". This provision was
crafted to meet practical needs in armed conflict. A
"competent tribunal" is mandated to make status
determinations and is therefore not akin to a judicial body
charged with reviewing challenges to the legality of
detention or issues of individual criminal responsibility.

Under certain conditions persons who do not qualify as POW,
but who directly participate in hostilities or otherwise
represent a serious threat to security may, under the Fourth
Geneva Convention, be detained until cessation of active
hostilities. They should be released earlier if they no
longer pose a serious security threat to the Detaining Power.
They remain protected by the Fourth Convention until final
release.

It should be emphasized that any person in the power of a
Party to an international armed conflict, regardless of his
or her specific legal status, is entitled to the "Fundamental
Guarantees" provided for in Article 75 of the First
Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. These
guarantees are widely recognized as reflecting customary
international law and represent an essential safety net of
protections that must be observed in relation to all
detainees, at all times.

In situations of non-international armed conflict, Article 3
common to the Geneva Conventions contains basic protections
that must be accorded to all persons not, or no longer,
taking an active part in hostilities. International
jurisprudence has determined that its rules are applicable in
all types of armed conflicts, both non-international and
international. Accordingly, persons covered by the article
must "in all circumstances be treated humanely". Torture,
cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment are "prohibited at
any time and in any place whatsoever". Common Article 3 also
prohibits the passing of sentences without previous judgment
pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording
judicial guarantees.

In situations not amounting to armed conflict, the rights of
all persons deprived of liberty, including those who may be
detained in relation to the fight against terrorism, are
recognized in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The Covenant obliges States to treat
detainees with "humanity and with respect for the inherent
dignity of the human person" and guarantees the individual
right to liberty and security of person. States' obligations
under the Covenant may be subject to derogation under defined
circumstances and on the basis of procedural safeguards.
Furthermore, all individuals are protected by the 1984
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention specifies
that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked
as a justification of torture. This prohibition also applies
to persons detained in relation to the fight against
terrorism, as well as to persons transferred to another State.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has a
right of unrestricted access to all detainees in
international armed conflicts. In non-international armed
conflicts, visits are inter alia recognized in resolutions of
the States Parties to the Geneva Conventions. The ICRC is
habitually granted access to persons deprived of liberty
outside of armed conflicts.

29 March 2006

End text of Norwegian Note.


Visit Oslo's Classified website:
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/oslo/index.cf m

WHITNEY