13-01-10: ECHR: Johnstone v. Norway: Discrimination & Denied Effective Remedy

Voir Notice See Notes

Numéro de dossier File number

Requête Application

présentée en application de l’article 34 de la Convention européenne des Droits de l’Homme, ainsi que des articles 45 et 47 du règlement de la Cour under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court

IMPORTANT:

La présente requête est un document juridique et peut affecter vos droits et obligations.

This application is a formal legal document and may affect your rights and obligations.

I. The Parties A. The Applicant 1. Surname:

Johnstone

2. First Name(s):

Lara

Sex:

Female

3. Nationality:

South African

4. Occupation:

Worm Farmer (Vermicomposter)

5. Date and place of birth:

04 December 1966 : Volksrust, RSA

6. Permanent address:

16 Taaibos Ave, George, 6529, RSA

7. Tel no.:

+27-44-870 7239 [Cel: +27-71-170 1954]

8. Present address:

As Above

9. Name of representative:

Self

10. Occupation of representative:

Worm Farmer (Paralegal)

11. Address of representative:

As Above

12. Tel no.:

As Above

Fax no.:

+27-44-870 7239

B. The High Contracting Party Kingdom of Norway

II. Statement of the Facts 14.1 Overview: Violations of Right to an Effective Remedy, by Supreme Court Secretary General and Parliamentary Ombudsman: A. The (i) 10 September 2012, administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement’; and (ii) the 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision, was a ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, thereby justifying his refusal to order 2

Secretary General Bergby to process Applicants Application for Review; were (iii) violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy and (iv) were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against ‘right wing’ (cultural conservatives).

14.2

Overview: Discrimination and Right to an Effective Remedy:

14.3 The Norwegian government has no justification to discriminate against an accused, by denying the accused his Right to a Free and Fair Trial (an effective remedy), simply because an accused is an ‘extreme right wing conservative’.

14.4 The Norwegian government has no justification to discriminate against a ‘right wing’ accused, whose primary objective is to profit from such ‘liberal left wing’ discrimination against him, to attain ‘right wing’ martyr and victimhood status, thereby to emotionally outrage right wing conservatives, and contribute to greater polarisation of the public into left vs. right wing camps.

14.5 The Norwegian government has no justification to discriminate against a ‘right wing’ accused, for the covert purposes of profiting from such left vs right wing polarisation consequences of denying a right wing accused his right to a free and fair trial.

14.6 The Norwegian government has no justification to politically profit from denying a ‘hated’ accused their right to a free and fair trial, simply because the public is emotionally outraged and on a ‘right wing extremist witch hunt’ and obtain schadenfreude satisfaction from observing the judicial system discriminate against such ‘hated’ individual.

14.7 The Norwegian government has no justification to discriminate against any individual who does not share the ‘right wing’ accused’s ideology, nor the public’s rabid emotional ‘right wing witch hunt’ hysteria for revenge and denial of the rule of law to the ‘right wing’ accused, who endorses the ‘right wing’ accused’s right to a free and fair trial.

14.8 Anthropocentrically speaking: Right wing extremist terrorist Anders Breivik deserves a free and fair trial, and an objective and subjective enquiry into his political necessity evidence; by the Left wing extremist Norwegian Government; upon the same Norwegian rule of law due process principles; as left wing extremist terrorist Nelson Mandela deserved a free and fair trial, and an impartial objective and subjective enquiry into the evidence for his defence; by the Right wing extremist South African Apartheid government.

14.9 ‘Norway’s Politically Correct Discrimination & Censorship of Cultural Conservatives, by Feminists and Multiculturalists justified the Violent ‘Necessity’ of 22 July 2011 Attacks’ – Anders Breivik 3

A. On 22 July 2011, a fertilizer truck bomb exploded in Oslo within Regjeringskvartalet, in front of the office of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, at 15:25:22 (CEST), killing eight and injuring at least 209; and ninety minutes later, a mass shooting occurred at a summer camp organized by the AUF, the youth division of the ruling Norwegian Labour Party (AP) on the island of Utøya in Tyrifjorden, Buskerud, by a gunman dressed in a homemade police uniform, killing 69, and injuring at least 110.

B. The Norwegian Police arrested Anders Behring Breivik, born 13 February 1979, on Utøya island and charged him with both attacks. Breivik admitted to having carried out the actions he was accused of, but denied criminal guilt and claimed the defence of necessity (jus necessitatis).

Breivik’s necessity justification – as detailed in his Manifesto: 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence and simplistically referred to as “Titanic Europe is on a demographic/immigration collision course with Islam Iceberg” -- was two-pronged: (1) Resist Eurabia: He believes Islam and cultural Marxism are involved in a ‘Eurabian’ demographic colonisation and ethnic cleansing of indigenous Norwegians and Europeans, and that it is a matter of necessity to resist “Eurabia”, to preserve European Christendom; (2) Gov & Media Censorship required Ultra violence to Access International Publicity: Non-violent resistance is futile, as democracy is no longer functioning in Norway, due to politically correct discrimination and exclusion – by means of censorship and persecution – of cultural conservatives by the left wing extremist Norwegian government and media.

C.

D. According to Oslo Organized Crime Police Investigation Report: “Explanation of 22 July 2011, doc 08,01”: “[Breivik] emphasizes that if he had not been censored by the media all his life, he would not have had to do what he did. He believes the media have the main responsibility for what has happened because they did not publish his opinions.... The low-intensity civil war that he had already described, had lasted until now with ideological struggle and censorship of cultural conservatives...... He explains that this is the worst day of his life and that he has dreaded this for 2 years. He has been censored for years. He mentions Dagbladet and Aftenposten as those who among other things have censored him..... He says that he also wrote “essays” that he tried to publish via the usual channels, but that they were all censored..... The subject summarizes: As long as more than twelve were executed, the operation will still be a success. The experts ask how the number twelve comes into consideration. Twelve dead are needed to penetrate the censorship wall, he explains..... About his thoughts on the Utøya killings now, the subject says: The goal was to execute as many as possible. At least 30. It was horrible, but the number had to be assessed based on the global censorship limit.

Utøya was a martyrdom, and I am very proud of it..... He believes he had to kill at least twelve, because there is a censorship-wall preventing an open debate about 4

what is happening in the country..... So I knew I had to cross a certain threshold to exceed the censorship-wall of the international media.”

E.

As argued in Anders Breivik 22 June 2012 Closing Statement:

a. “Mullah Krekar [a Kurdish Islamic refugee in Norway] .. calls himself a Kurdish religious leader. He is one of the few Muslim leaders who are honest about Islam’s takeover of Europe. Krekar said, “In Denmark they printed drawings, but the result was that support of Islam increased. I, and all Muslims, are evidence.

You have not managed to change us. It is we who are changing you. Look at the changes in the population of Europe, where Muslims reproduce like mosquitoes.

Every Western woman in Europe has 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries gives birth to 3.5 children.” b. “One of the most influential people in Norway, Arne Strand [a print and broadcast journalist and former member of Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland's cabinet] in Dagsavisen [the daily newspaper Strand edits, until 1999 the official organ of the Labor Party, now independent] has issued many statements about press subsidies. He proposes that everyone on the right, to the right of Carl I. Hagen [former Vice President of the Storting (Norwegian Parliament) and exchairman of the Progress Party], should be censored, and excluded from the democratic process. He says straight out that government press subsidies [to the Left, denied to the right] are necessary to preserve the current political hegemony.

We must protect hegemony, we must not allow people the right to express themselves. The system of press subsidies ensures that Norway will never be a democracy, because those on the far right are excluded.” c. “This trial should be about finding the truth. The documentation of my claims—are they true? If they are true, how can what I did be illegal? Norwegian academics and journalists work together and make use of [..] methods to deconstruct Norwegian identity, Christianity, and the Norwegian nation. How can it be illegal to engage in armed resistance against this? The prosecution wondered who gave me a mandate to do what I did. [..] I have answered this before, but will do so again. Universal human rights, international law, and the right to selfdefense provided the mandate to carry out this self-defense. Everything has been triggered by the actions of those who consciously and unconsciously are destroying our country. Responsible Norwegians and Europeans who feel even a trace of moral obligation are not going to sit by and watch as we are made into minorities in our own lands. We are going to fight. The attacks on July 22 were preventive attacks in defense of my ethnic group, the Norwegian indigenous people. I therefore cannot acknowledge guilt. I acted from necessity (nødrett) on behalf of my people, my religion and my country.”

5

14.10 Norwegian Prosecutors did not embark on legal proceedings to dispute and negate the evidence of Breivik’s ‘Necessity’ evidence, by means of a Political Necessity ‘Right Wing’ Terrorism trial, wherein Breivik’s Necessity evidence was proven unjustified, in accordance to the required Objective and Subjective test; but chose instead to proceed with a Stalinesque Political Psychiatry show trial, where Breivik was alleged to be ‘insane’, and was forced to prove his sanity. Once his sanity was proven, the matter of an impartial free and fair Terrorism Necessity trial, to determine his guilt or innocence, was ignored, as irrelevant.

14.11 Applicant’s EcoFeminist Political Necessity Activism and Social Science Enquiry Ecological Biocentric worldview: 14.12 Applicant is neither anthropocentrically liberal nor conservative, but an EcoFeminist Guerrylla Law1 Sustainable Security2 Radical Honoursty Transparency Primitivist and paralegal interested and active in Political Necessity civil disobedience activism.

14.13 She is the founder of the unregistered Guerrylla Law Radical Honoursty Party, the aim of which is to establish a Green License to Vote, to elect a Green President, to transition South Africa into a Sustainable Voluntaryist (Honourable Free Society of Men and Women capable of ruling themselves) Green Republic.

The Guerrylla Law Radical Honoursty Party, is founded on the Guerrylla Law Radical Honoursty Social Contract which include, among others, the following principles: 14.14

A. Radical Honoursty Problem Solving Communicator Status: Any individual who desires this ‘status’ is required to follow the Radical Honoursty Problem Solving Communicator communication principles. All written communication for such members attention must be (a) acknowledged as received, (b) honestly A guerrilla law regulates human procreation and/or resource utilization behaviour, to ensure sustainability. It is a subdivision of Wild Law, which is a new legal theory and growing social movement. It proposes that we rethink our legal, political, economic and governance systems so that they support, rather than undermine, the integrity and health of the Earth. www.wildlaw.org.au 2 “There is no security without sustainability”[1]: In the absence of an international new moral order[2] where Ecocentric laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; “overpopulation[3] and resource scarcity[4] will result in conflict and war”[5] (perhaps nuclear ) confronting regions at an accelerated pace[7], resulting in the “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy”[8] by 2050. [1] Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability; Linkola, P (2009): Can Life Prevail? A Radical Approach to the Environmental Crisis (Integral Tradition Publishing); [2] Hardin, G (1968/12/13): Tragedy of the Commons, Science; Peters, R (1996): The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College: Parameters: Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27; [3] Hardin G (1991): Carrying Capacity and Quality of Life, Environmental Science: Sustaining the Earth; Simmons, M (2000/09/30): Revisiting the Limits to Growth: Could the Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All?; [4] Koppel, T (2000): CIA and Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resource Wars, Nightline; United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18): The Joint Operating Environment - 2010 (The JOE – 2010); Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27): Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Environment, Center for a New American Security (CNAS); United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study Plan (FSP); Peters (1996)’ [5] Peters (1996); Bush, GW Snr (1986/02): Public Report of the Vice-President’s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism; Homer-Dixon, T, & Boutwell, J, & Rathjens, G (1993): Environmental change and violent conflict: Growing scarcities of renewable resources can contribute to social instability and civil strife. Scientific American, 268(2), pp. 38-45; [6] Hardin (1968/12/13), [7] United States Army & TRADOC (2012); [8] Schultz, S (2010/09/01): [German] Military Study Warns of Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis, Der Spiegel; [9] Clugston, C (2012): Scarcity: Humanity’s Final Chapter (Booklocker.com Inc): Preface, pg. ix 1

6

answered or the questioner to be notified of a ‘by when’ date, when honest answers shall be provided. (c) Brutal honesty is considered honourable respect; sycophancy or PR is considered passive aggressive, manipulative and insulting. (d) In any disagreement or misunderstanding with another member, to commit to remain in discussion, with each other, until it is resolved. (e) Any member who ignores or evades another member’s attempts to resolve a disagreement, or to answer a question, will be put on the ‘Dishonourable Hit List’ for Party assassination after two final warning notices to the member, from the party to either: (a) resign, or (b) resolve the disagreement, by a specific date, in accordance to their Radical Honoursty Problem Solving Communicator Status oath.

B. Sustainability: A Sustainable3 society regulates human procreation and/or resource utilization behaviour4, to ensure sustainability.

C. Sustainable Rights: Laws of Nature determine that Environmental or ecological rights and responsibilities are the sine qua non5 foundation for all other Rights6.

D. Sustainable Security: ‘There is no security without sustainability’7 : In the absence of an international new moral order8 where Ecocentric Guerrylla laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; “overpopulation9 and resource scarcity10 will result in conflict and war”11 (perhaps Sustainability requires living within the regenerative capacity of the biosphere. The human economy depends on the planet’s natural capital, which provides all ecological services and natural resources. Drawing on natural capital beyond its regenerative capacity results in depletion of the capital stock.

4 Bartlett (1994/09): Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment, Population & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 1, Sep 1994, pp. 5-35; Clugston, C (2009): Sustainability Defined (WakeUpAmerika): “Sustainable natural resource utilization behaviour involves the utilization of renewable natural resources—water, cropland, pastureland, forests, and wildlife—exclusively, which can be depleted only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature. The utilization of non-renewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals— at any level, is not sustainable.”

5 “Environmental Protection as a Principle of International Law : The protection of the environment is likewise a vital part of contemporary human rights doctrine, for it is a sine qua non for numerous human rights such as the right to health and the right to life itself. It is scarcely necessary to elaborate on this, as damage to the environment can impair and undermine all; the human rights spoken of in the Universal Declaration and other human rights instruments.” -Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206.

6 Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation, Al Bartlett, Ph.D., Population & Environment, Vol. 22, No. 1, Sep 2000, pgs. 6371; Bartlett (1994/09): Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment, Population & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 1, Sep 1994, pp. 5-35; Clugston, C (2009): Sustainability Defined (WakeUpAmerika) 7 Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability; Linkola, P (2009): Can Life Prevail? A Radical Approach to the Environmental Crisis (Integral Tradition Publishing) 8 Hardin, G (1968/12/13): Tragedy of the Commons, Science; Peters, R (1996): The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College: Parameters: Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27 9 Hardin G (1991): Carrying Capacity and Quality of Life, Environmental Science: Sustaining the Earth; Simmons, M (2000/09/30): Revisiting the Limits to Growth: Could the Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All? 10 Koppel, T (2000): CIA and Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resource Wars, Nightline; United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18): The Joint Operating Environment - 2010 (The JOE – 2010); Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27): Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Environment, Center for a New American Security (CNAS); United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study Plan (FSP); Brent, JG (2012): Humans: An Endangered Species Jason Brent; Heinberg, R (2006/04/30): Population, Resources, and Human Idealism, Energy Bulletin; Peters (1996) 11 Peters (1996); Bush, GW Snr (1986/02): Public Report of the Vice-President’s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism; HomerDixon, T, & Boutwell, J, & Rathjens, G (1993): Environmental change and violent conflict: Growing scarcities of renewable resources can contribute to social instability and civil strife. Scientific American, 268(2), pp. 38-45 3

7

nuclear12) confronting regions at an accelerated pace 13, resulting in the “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy”14 by 205015.

E. Guerrylla Laws: define the procreation and consumption behaviour of an individual as an Eco-Innocent16 (sustainable) or Scarcity-Combatant17 (unsustainable), based upon (A) a sustainable bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha)18 (60 % of 1.8 gha19) in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan20; and (B) the Oregon University study that concludes that every child increases a parents’ eco-footprint by a factor of 2021.

F. A Green Voter is an individual whose procreation and consumption behaviour is sustainable, as defined by Guerrylla laws, as an Eco-Innocent22.

G. Only Green Voters can elect the Green President, whose general duty is to (A) protect the Constitution from the Tragedy of the Commons material greed and psychological and political dishonour of the nations Scarcity (breeding and consumption) combatants, who wish to exploit the country’s resources for shortterm political and socio-economic profits, and (B) transition South Africa to a Sustainable Voluntaryist Green Republic.

H. The Green President’s sustainable security legislative duty is to veto all legislation that obstructs, or fails to reduce, the nation’s Scarcity combatant’s procreation and/or consumption path to sustainability, based upon Guerrylla law sustainable rights and sustainable security principles.

I. The Green Presidents sustainable security executive duty is to protect the Constitution, root out all corruption, by taking over the duty of executive supervision of the Ministry of Police and Ministry of Justice, including the appointment of all Magistrates and Justices. Magistrates and Judges shall be required to ascertain, verify, and transparently declare – as part of the court record Hardin (1968/12/13) United States Army & TRADOC (2012) 14 Schultz, S (2010/09/01): [German] Military Study Warns of Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis, Der Spiege 15 Clugston, C (2012): Scarcity: Humanity’s Final Chapter (Booklocker.com Inc): Preface, pg. ix 16 Eco-Innocent: * 0 children, consumption < 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption < 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) * 2 children, consumption < 0.05 gha (1 gha ÷ 20) | * 3 children, consumption < 0.025 gha (1 gha ÷ 40) 17 Scarcity Combatant: * 0 children, consumption > 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption > 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) * 2 children, consumption > 0.05 gha (1 gha ÷ 20) | * 3 children, consumption > 0.025 gha (1 gha ÷ 40) 18 A biocapacity of 1 gha assumes that 40% of land is set aside for other species.

19 In 2006, the average biologically productive area (biocapacity) per person worldwide was approximately 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita, which assumes that no land is set aside for other species.

20 Bhutan is seen as a model for proactive conservation initiatives. The Kingdom has received international acclaim for its commitment to the maintenance of its biodiversity. This is reflected in the decision to maintain at least sixty percent of the land area under forest cover, to designate more than 40% of its territory as national parks, reserves and other protected areas, and most recently to identify a further nine percent of land area as biodiversity corridors linking the protected areas.

Environmental conservation has been placed at the core of the nation's development strategy, the middle path. It is not treated as a sector but rather as a set of concerns that must be mainstreamed in Bhutan's overall approach to development planning and to be buttressed by the force of law. - "Parks of Bhutan". Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation online. Bhutan Trust Fund. Retrieved 2011-03-26.

21 Murtaugh Paul (31 July 2009): Family Planning: A Major Environmental Emphasis, Oregon University http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jul/family-planning-major-environmental-emphasis 22 * 0 children, consumption < 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption < 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) * 2 children, consumption < 0.05 gha (1 gha ÷ 20) | * 3 children, consumption < 0.025 gha (1 gha ÷ 40) 12 13

8

- the Eco-Innocent23 (sustainable) or Scarcity-Combatant24 (unsustainable) status of all parties (including the Judge, legal representatives and State Representatives) to any court proceeding; including consideration of such status, where relevant to the legal proceedings. Any Eco-Innocent is entitled to be tried by an Eco-Innocent Prosecutor and Judge, and in any dispute with a Scarcity Combatant, may require the court to take notice of Scarcity Combatants behaviour as a relevant 25 aggravating factor to Scarcity related socio-political problems, such as: crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, food shortages, inflation, political instability, loss of civil rights, conformism, political correctness, vanishing species, pollution, urban sprawl, toxic waste, energy depletion.

J. An individual can only run for Green President, as (A) an Independent or from a Political Party, which practices 100% transparency disclosure of all campaign contributions, and (B) whose procreation and consumption lifestyle qualifies them as an Eco-Innocent26.

14.15 Applicant consequently partially agrees with Breivik, that not only Europe, but the World is at War, but considers the economic, political and military war between the Political Left and Right to be a deliberate distraction, from the real war that is being waged by both the Left and Right’s support for the Ind:Civ:F(x) world war27 against nature.

14.16 Ind:Civ:F(x) World War: Industrial Civilization’s Exponential Economic Growth Breeding and Consumption War Scarcity combatant humans are at war with each other (Left v Right), Eco-Innocents, all other species for their preferential access to , and control of, nature’s finite resources.

14.17 Applicant’s terrorism default working hypothesis is that much of terrorism – whether left or right -- is a result of Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Gatekeeper editor’s censorship of dissenter’s attempts at non-violent problem solving, creating a socio-political pressure cooker environment, where activists are forced to resort to violence for publicity, which benefits the media corporations ‘If It Bleeds, it Leads’ editorial policies and corporate profits.

14.18 Applicant endorses everyone from the extreme left to right’s right to access to impartial courts. Applicant decided to test whether Breiviks allegations of Eco-Innocent: * 0 children, consumption < 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption < 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) * 2 children, consumption < 0.05 gha (1 gha ÷ 20) | * 3 children, consumption < 0.025 gha (1 gha ÷ 40) 24 Scarcity Combatant: * 0 children, consumption > 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption > 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) * 2 children, consumption > 0.05 gha (1 gha ÷ 20) | * 3 children, consumption > 0.025 gha (1 gha ÷ 40) 25 Population Policy: http://sqswans.weebly.com/population-policy.html Scarcity and Conflict: http://sqswans.weebly.com/scarcity--conflict1.html 26 * 0 children, consumption < 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption < 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) * 2 children, consumption < 0.05 gha (1 gha ÷ 20) | * 3 children, consumption < 0.025 gha (1 gha ÷ 40) 27 Clugston, C (2012): Scarcity: Humanity’s Final Chapter (Booklocker.com Inc); Jensen, Derrick: Endgame: The Problem of Civilization; Jensen, Derrick: End:Civ: Resist or Die (documentary); Kaczynski Theodore: Technological Slavery: The Collected Writings of Theodore J. Kaczynski, a.k.a. "The Unabomber" (2010); Linkola, P (2009): Can Life Prevail? A Radical Approach to the Environmental Crisis (Integral Tradition Publishing); Unabomber: The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and its Future (2008); Zerzan, John: Against Civilization: Readings and Reflections (2005); Zerzan, John: Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilization (2008); Zerzan, John: Twilight of the Machines (2008) 23

9

Norway’s discrimination against and censorship of cultural conservatives was true, by means of embarking on a social science test to determine how Left Wing Norwegian Officials and media and right wing Breivik, would react to an EcoFeminist, supporting Breivik’s right to a free and fair trial.

14.19 Applicant was particularly motivated to test Breivik’s allegations of discrimination against right wing / cultural conservatives, considering his EcoInnocent status.

14.20 Anders Breivik: ‘Peacenik Innocent’ in Scarcity Combatants Ind.Civ.F(x) World War on Nature Theory: A. Dr. Jack Alpert28 defines Peace and Conflict not as descriptions of behaviour between nations, but as trends describing social conditions. Put differently: Conflict is not defined as the violence between neighbours and nations, but as the unwanted intrusion of one person’s existence and consumption behaviour upon another person.

B. There are two kinds of conflict: Direct: he took my car, he enslaved me, he beat me, he raped me, he killed me; and Indirect. Indirect intrusions are the byproduct of other people's behaviour. ‘All the trees on our island were consumed by our grandparents,’ is an indirect intrusion of a past generation on a present one.

‘The rich people raised the price of gasoline and we can't afford it,’ and ‘The government is offering people welfare to breed more children’ are current economic and demographic intrusions by one present group on another present group.

C. System conflict is the sum of intrusions experienced by each constituent, summed over all the constituents. A measure of the existing global conflict is the sum of six billion sets of intrusions. A measure of Europe’s conflict is the sum of 740 million sets of intrusions.

D. Using this definition of conflict, Dr. Alpert establishes that to move Earth’s socio-economic and political system toward peace – in terms of procreation - would require the implementation of a one child per family policy29. In the absence of such rapid population policy, civilization shall collapse30.

E. Consequently, as a result of Breivik’s ‘no children’ status, if his consumption footprint was below 20 global hectares, his status in the Ind.Civ.F(x) world war would be that of an Eco-Innocent.

14.21 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 30 November 2011: Ecofeminist Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem and Review of Husby/Sorheim Psych Evaluation Report to Oslo District Court of Judge Nina Opsahl: http://sqswans.weebly.com/dr-jack-alpert.html Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required http://sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html 30 Rapid Population Decline or Civilization Collapse http://sqswans.weebly.com/rapid-population-decline.html 28 29

10

A. On 30 November 2011, applicant filed an Application (PDF31) for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Sorheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011. The application was filed electronically to the Oslo District Court Registrar.

B. Notifications of the Application were sent to: 680 EU Members of Parliament32 on 04 December; 330 Norwegian Government Officials33 on 05 December; and 1,283 Norwegian Editors and Journalists34 on 07 December 2011.

The Norwegian media did not consider an EcoFeminists (Breiviks enemy) legal support for Breivik to receive a free and fair trial, to be worthy of publicity; preferring the narrative that only the extreme right wing supported a free and fair trial for Breivik.

C. On 15 December 2011 applicant requested the Registrar to “confirm: (1) the date my application is to be submitted to Judge Opsahl, or the relevant Judge, for their consideration, (2) the date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling on the matter.” There was no response from the Clerk of the Court.

14.22 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 15 April 2012: Ecofeminist Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae, to Oslo District Court of Judge Wenche Arntzen: A. On 15 April 2012, Applicant filed an Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (PDF35), to the Oslo District Court Registrar.

B. Notifications were sent to 1,384 Norwegian Editors and Journalists36 on 16 April 2012. Again the media did not consider an EcoFeminists (Breiviks enemy) legal support for Breivik to receive a free and fair trial, to be worthy of publicity; preferring the narrative that only the extreme right wing supported a free and fair trial for Breivik.

C. On 26 April 2012, Applicant requested the court to confirm “(1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, or the relevant Judge, for her/their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling approving or denying my application.” There was no response from the Clerk of the Court.

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/111204_habmentem_680-eu-mps.html 33 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/111205_330polhabmentem.html 34 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/111207_habeusmedia.html 35 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus 36 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/04/120416_amicus_1384media.html 31 32

11

14.23 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 10 May 2012: Ecofeminist Application for Review to Norway Supreme Court of Justice Tore Schei: A. On 10 May 2012, Applicant filed an Application to Review the Oslo District Court failure to act in accordance of due process to the Norway Supreme Court Registrar.

B. On 11 May 2012 Applicant requested the Registrar to “kindly clarify when the Registrar shall issue a Case Number; or whether you require additional documentation or information?”

C. On 15 May 2012, Deputy Secretary General Kjersti Buun Nygaard responded37 with: “Please be advised that the Supreme Court of Norway only handles appeals against judgments given by the lower courts and can consequently not deal with the issue mentioned in your e-mails. Further inquiries from you regarding the above issue can not be expected to be answered.”

D.

On 15 May 2012, Applicant responded38 (PDF39) detailing the Error in

Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application to Supreme Court for Declaratory Orders and Review of Oslo District Court’s Decisions. There was no response from Ms. Nygaard or any other Supreme Court official.

14.24 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: Complaints against Judge Opsahl, Arentzen and Schei to Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges: A. On 30 May 2012, three complaints of Violation of Ethical Principles of Norwegian Judges, were submitted to Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges: against Judge Nina Opsahl (PDF40), Judge Wenche Arentzen (PDF41), and Justice Tore Schei (PDF42). The essence of the Oslo District Court complaints being that the Oslo District Court registrar refuses to process the applications, and refusal to provide any reasons for their refusal, clarifying for example, possible errors which require correction, were judicial ethics violations, and a failure of applicants right to due process, and an effective remedy.

B. Two complaints of slow case processing – on 04 July 2012 (PDF43) and 02 September 2012 (PDF44) -- had to be filed against the Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges with the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Case 2012-1943), http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120515_nsc-nygaard.html http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120515_sharp-nsc.html 39 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120515_nsc-nygaard 40 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120530_tilsynsutvalget_opsahl 41 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120530_tilsynsutvalget_arntzen 42 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120530_tilsynsutvalget_schei 43 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120704_ombud_sscj 44 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120902_po-sscj 37 38

12

before the Secretariat issued Case Numbers: 12-071 (Opsahl), 12-072 (Arntzen) and 12-073 (Schei), on 03 September 2012, and informed the Applicant that “If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved.”

C. On 23 October 2012, the Supervisory Committee for Judges changed their minds and decided they were not going to process the complaints in accordance to their ‘standard procedures’, of receiving a statement from the respective Judges, but were going to issue rulings in Norwegian, that all the complaint were ‘obviously unfounded’ (Google Translation). [Opsahl (PDF45), Arntzen (PDF46), and Schei (PDF47)] D. Repeated requests for an English Translation of the ruling have been refused, including reasons why applicant was not informed, as part of ‘standard procedures’ that the ruling to her English complaint, would be issued in Norwegian.

E.

On 31 December 2012 , a complaint of Language Discrimination and Lack

of Clear Principles by Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings, in response to English Language complaints in Case 12-071: Judge Nina Opsahl, 12-072: Judge Wenche Arntzen, 12-073: Judge Tore Schei.”

(PDF48), was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. As of date, no response has yet been received.

14.25 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 19 June 2012: Appeal to Norway’s Environmental Appeals Board: Media Censorship of Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection: A.

From 24 April to 14 May copies of the 22 April 2012: Earth Day report:

Acquittal or Firing Squad: If it Bleeds, it Leads, Media's Population Terrorism Connection (PDF49) were distributed to: 677 EU Members of Parliament50 on 24 April; 863 UK Lords and Members of Parliament51 on 25 April; and on 14 May: 1,230 University of Oslo Law Professors and Lecturers 52, 482 Law Professors and Lawyers53, 1,278 Norwegian Editors and Journalists54, PM Jens Stoltenberg and 1676 Norwegian Government Officials55, 104 NGO Officials56 and 258 Psychologists57. Again the media did not consider an EcoFeminists (Breiviks http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121023_ninaopsahl http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121003_warntzen 47 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121023_toreschei 48 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/12-12-31_po-cf_ssc4j_disc-amb_encl-comp-abc 49 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120422_bleads-leads 50 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/04/120424_677-eu-mp.html 51 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/04/120425_863-uk-mps-lords.html 52 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120514_1230-uio.html 53 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120514_482nolaw.html 54 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120514_1278media.html 55 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120514_1676pol1.html 56 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120514_104ngo.html 57 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120522_258-psykfor.html 45 46

13

enemy) legal support for Breivik to receive a free and fair trial, to be worthy of publicity; preferring the narrative that only the extreme right wing supported a free and fair trial for Breivik.

B. The “If It Bleads, It Leads :: Media Population-Terrorism Connection”, Report (PDF58) argued that Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Editors censorship of non-violent political grievances and problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for their “If it Bleads, It Leads” corporate propaganda profits, by (1) censoring the Scarcity (due to Overpopulation and Overconsumption) causes of violent resource war conflict; (2) that media abuse their publicity power in terms of their censorship of Ecocentric arguments submitted to courts; (3) Editors abuse their publicity power, by abusing public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse; (4) Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in Dr. Michael Maher’s report How and Why Journalists Avoid Population - Environment connection (PDF59); and censor non-violent rootcause problem solving activism.

C. The report also included evidence that (i) 1,283 Norwegian Editors and Journalists had been Informed of the December 2011 Application to the Oslo District Court of Judge Nina Opsahl, all of whom had censored it from their readers; and (ii) 1,384 Norwegian Editors and Journalists had been informed of the April 2012 EcoFeminist Application to the Disctrict Court of Judge Wenche Arntzen, all of whom had censored it from their readers.

D. On 25 May 2012, correspondence was submitted to: Adresseavisen: Editor: Arne Blix (PDF60); Aftenposten: Editor: Hilde Haugsgjerd (PDF61); Bergens Tidende: Editor: Trine Eilertsen (PDF62); Dagbladet: Editor: John Arne Markussen (PDF63); NRK: Editor: Hans Tore Bjerkaas (PDF64); TV2: Editor: Alf Hildrum (PDF65); VG: Editor: Torry Pedersen (PDF66); requesting the Editors to clarify their editorial decision-making to censor information about the Media’s EnvironmentPopulation-Terrorism Connection, during a Norwegian Terrorism trial being publicized by international media on the international stage; and their decisionmaking to censor information regarding the EcoFeminist Applications to the Oslo District Court on behalf of a free and fair trial, for the Feminist hating ‘right wing’

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120422_bleads-leads http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection 60 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_adresseavisen 61 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_aftenposten 62 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_bergenstidende 63 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_dagbladet 64 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_nrk 65 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_tv2 66 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_vg 58 59

14

terrorist, from their readers. The editors refused to provide the requested information.

E. On 19 June 2012, an Appeal (PDF67) was submitted to the Environmental Appeals Board: Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in

terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny.

14.26 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 10 September 2012: Environmental Appeal Board Ruling on Media Censorship: A. Initially Applicant’s media censorship complaint was deleted by the Environmental Appeals Board without reason. Upon complaint to Ministry of Environment68, it was given a Reference number69, with no apology for the deletion, implying the deletion was intentional and appropriate. On 04 July 2012, a complaint of Slow Case Processing (PDF70) was filed to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The Environment Appeals Board refused to simply answer questions, delaying the complaint until ‘after summer’71, and refusing72 to say when the end of summer would be73. Then promising it would be dealt with in August74, only to do nothing75 in August767778.

B. On 10 September 2012, the Secretariat of the Environmental Appeals Board issued a ruling79 (PDF80) – in violation of due process principles, without having received any statements from any media, or Bar Association parties – that Applicant’s Appeal was ‘unjustified’.

C. On 11 September 2012, Applicant requested81 reasons for the Environmental Appeals Boards violations of general procedures of impartial enquiry and due process.

D. On 18 September 2012, the Environmental Appeals Board responded that they violated general procedures of impartial enquiry and due process, because the Appeals ‘clearly had to be denied’.

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/180612_env-app-brd http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120625_minenv.html 69 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120625_eab_12-708.html 70 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120704_ombud_eab 71 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120628_eab-1045.html 72 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120629_eab-mjustice.html 73 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120628_eab-1315.html 74 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120703_eab-1021.html 75 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120703_mjus-eab-1100.html 76 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120704_po_eab.html 77 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120831_eab-mcensor.html 78 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120902_po-eab.html 79 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120910_eab-ba-media1.html 80 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-06_envappbrd_decision.pdf 81 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120911_eab.html 67 68

15

E. On 08 October 2012, Applicant responded that it was not clear why her Appeals ‘clearly had to be denied’, unless the Environmental Appeals board was massively corrupt. Applicant requested clarification of the Environmental Appeals Board’s ‘Environment’ definitions, and provided evidence how her appeals were both justified in accordance to the Aarhus convention’s definition of ‘environmental information’.

F. On 03 November 2012, Applicant submitted an official written request (PDF82) to the Environmental Appeals Board in terms of Public Administration Act (PAA), Section 23, 24, 25 and Freedom of Information Act, Section 22, requesting clarification of the factual and legal grounds upon which the Environmental Appeals Board justified their ruling of ‘clearly had to be denied’, “including clarifying exactly how my complaints do not fit the definition of Environment as clarified by the Aarhus convention and LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Act concerning the right to information and participation in public decision-making processes relating to the environment (environmental law)”.

G. On 06 November 2012, the Environmental Appeals Board notified Applicant her request for factual and legal grounds for her denied Appeal, had been denied83.

H. On 11 November 2012, Applicant filed an Appeal (PDF84) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Erroneous Decision by Environment Appeals Board in

Environmental Information Appeals re: [I] Editorial Decision-Making: Censorship of Media’s ‘Population-Environment-Terrorism’ Connection; [II] Bar Association: Anti-Environmental Complaints Policy.

I. The Parliamentary Ombudsman Appeal against the Media Censorship Ruling argued (i) It was an Irregular Violation of Due Process: Irregular failure of Impartial Arbitration due process procedures; (ii) the Environmental Appeals Board failed to justify how the requested Population Growth and Consumptionism information requested from the Media is not ‘Environmental Information’: Population Growth and Corporate Advocacy of Consumptionism are primary factors in Resource Scarcity, Species Extinction and Environmental Degradation, and (iii) the Editor’s and Environmental Appeals Board’s Refusal of Access to Information from Media Respondents is Contrary to Provisions of Freedom of Information Act, Right to Environmental Information Act and Aarhus Convention.

J. On 27 November 2012, the Parliamentary Ombudsman ruled (PDF85) that “The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121103_eab http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121106_eab1.html 84 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121112_po-eab 85 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-27_2012-1987_env_appeals_board.pdf 82 83

16

your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.”

14.27 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations 27 August 2012: Application to Norway Supreme Court, for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement ruling of 24 August:

A.

On 27 August 2012, an Application (PDF86) was submitted to Norway Supreme Court for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Necessity87 Ruling, which states that “As regards this submission, the Court briefly notes that neither the provisions of the Penal Code concerning necessity nor international human rights, which the defendant also invokes, allow the murder of government employees, politically active youth or others, to further extreme political goals. It is evident that this submission cannot be accepted.”88 B.

Review Orders Requested:

a. Set Aside the Judgements ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’ (pg.6789) b. Set Aside Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.

C.

Grounds for Review:

a. The application for review is based on the grounds of (A) Irregularities & Illegalities in the Proceedings before the Oslo District Court: in terms of (1) A Failure of Justice and Failure of a True and Correct Interpretation of the Facts; (2) Judicially Un-Investigated Facts; (3) Failure of Application of Mind and (4) Rejection of Admissible or Competent Evidence: (i) Prosecutor & Judges failure to examine objective and subjective necessity test; and (ii) Courts denial of due process to applicants Habeus Mentem and Amicus Curiae applications90. b. [A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity 91 c. [A.1.b] Necessity Judgement Ignores that Criminal Necessity provisions do not prohibit the killing of Government Officials in case of objective and subjective Necessity. http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-08-27_no-breivik_supremecrt_review_fs-nom-affidpos.pdf 87 “As regards this submission, the Court briefly notes that neither the provisions of the Penal Code concerning necessity nor international human rights, which the defendant also invokes, allow the murder of government employees, politically active youth or others, to further extreme political goals. It is evident that this submission cannot be accepted.” - Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) – Judgment. Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) TOSLO–2011–188627–24E (11–188627MED–OTIR/05).

88 Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) – Judgment. Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) TOSLO–2011–188627–24E (11– 188627MED–OTIR/05) 89 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120824_nvb-judmnt 90 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/oslo-district-court.html 91 LAW-1998-03-20-10-§ 5: Forskrift om sikkerhetsadministrasjon | Regulations relating to security management allows for “security breaches without criminal liability if the terms of the principle of necessity or self defence in criminal law law § 47 or § 48 is met.”

86

17

d. [A.1.c] Necessity Judgement’s Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law. e. [A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant’s Necessity Defence f. [A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate g. [A.1.f] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Clarification Upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was insufficient renders the Judgements Conclusions inadequate. h. [A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent i. [A.1.h] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test j.

[A.1.i] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test D.

Failure of Justice: Judicially Un-Investigated Facts: Necessity and Guilt:

a. No reference was made during court proceedings by any party alleging that any Norwegian or International specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity. b. No International or Norwegian specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity. c. Necessity criminal statutes do not specifically allow or disallow the killing of government or politically active young people, but provide for an objective and subjective test that examines each alleged criminal act to objectively and subjectively determine whether necessity existed, or the defendant honestly believed it existed, within the particular criminal act‘s relevant circumstances. d. The court, prosecution and defence counsel failed to conduct the required subjective and objective tests to examine the evidence for the Defendant‘s necessity motivations to determine (I) objectively whether the defendant‘s claims – simplistically rephrased as – “Titanic Europe is on a demographic/immigration collision course with Islam Iceberg”; and (II) secondly whether the defendant subjectively perceived the Titanic Europe/Islam Iceberg circumstances this way. e. The Judgement fails to disclose Norwegian law‘s Onus of Proof requirements in a case of necessity: i.e. upon which party – Defendant or State 18

does the Onus of Proof lie in case of Necessity? In South Africa, the proof in a defense of necessity, ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, lies on the State. In the absence of the State ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, the accused claim of necessity stands. f. It is clear that the Court's statement of reasons does not show the results of the courts objective and subjective enquiry into the Defendant‘s claim of necessity. Thus, it is also clear that the Court's statement of reasons for its “necessity finding of guilt”, are inadequate. Hence the finding of guilt needs to be set aside for further evidence to objectively and subjective evaluate the defendants necessity defence. g. Finally if the Courts statement of reasons remain uncorrected, they would set a bad precedent, encouraging other courts to deny necessity defendants their rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity defence, including denying the defendant information clarifying upon whom the Onus of Proof in a defence of necessity lies.

E.

Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity:

a. On 17 April 2012, the Oslo Court tweeted92 to Journalists attending the Breivik trial: “Wrong translation in the 22-7 trial yesterday: Breivik said "nodrett", Correct translation: "Principle of Necessity", not "self defence".” b. The principle of Necessity is enshrined in Norwegian Law in Section 47 of the Penal Code93: "No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone's person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act."

Prosecutor Engh and Holden “Refuse to touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity”: F.

a. According to Document.NO94, NRK95, VG96, NRK97, the transcripts Prosecutor Engh and Holden violated their duty of objectivity in terms of (a) impartially enquiring into and/or responding to the Accuseds‘ Defence; and (b) providing the court with the Prosecution‘s evaluation and conclusion of the evidence for and against Breivik‘s invocation of his Necessity Defence.

https://twitter.com/#!/Oslotingrett/status/192198581803945984 http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19020522-010-eng.pdf 94 Document.NO: Inga Bejer Engh Procedure Part.I (Inga Bejer Engh Procedure Part.I) http://www.document.no/2012/06/inga-bejer-engh-prosedyre-del-i/ 95 NRK: Rettssaken - dag 42 (The trial - day 42) at 12:15 http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/rettssaken---dag-42-1.8216159 96 VG: Ord-for-ord - dag 42 prosedyren til aktoratet (Word-for-word - day 42 procedure for prosecutors) http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10066042 97 NRK: Rettssaken - dag 43 (The Trial – Day 43), AT 09:10, 09:29, 10:21, 11:28, 14:45, 14:51, http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/rettssaken---dag-43-1.8218343 92 93

19

b. In her closing statement, Prosecutor Engh acknowledges that: (A) Norwegian prosecutors have a duty to conduct their investigation with objectivity; (B) Norwegian law allows for an accused to plead to necessity and/or self defence, (C) Where an accused does invoke necessity, it is the court and prosecutor‘s duty to investigate the accused‘s necessity defence arguments and evidence; (D) If an accused successfully invokes a necessity defence, this can and must result in either mitigation of sentence and/or a verdict of innocence; (E) Breivik invoked the defence of necessity; (F) Despite the fact that Breivik invoked the necessity defence, both Prosecutor Engh and Holden “refuse to touch the principle of necessity”.

G.

Necessity in Norwegian Law:

a. LAW-2005-05-20-28: Lov om straff (straffeloven). | Act on Punishment (Penal Code)98, (Google Translation) says: § 17 Necessity: “An action that would otherwise be criminal, is legal when a) it is being undertaken to save lives, health, property or any interest from the danger of injury that can not be averted in any other reasonable manner, and b) the risk of injury is far greater than the risk of injury by the action.” b. LAW-1998-03-20-10-§

5: Forskrift om sikkerhetsadministrasjon | Regulations relating to security management99 allows for “security breaches without criminal liability if the terms of the principle of necessity or self defence in criminal law law § 47 or § 48 is met.”

H.

Norwegian Law Necessity Judgement: Subjective and Objective Test:

a. In LE-2012-76983 Eidsivating Appeal – Judgment100 of 29 May 2012, an Eritrean man was accused of several Perjury related Immigration offences to help his sister to come to Norway. He admitted the facts, but claimed necessity. In court he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal suspended the appeal to test his conviction on one point (whether the court a quo had seriously enquired into his necessity defence). b. The Norwegian Court of Appeal agreed with the Defendant‘s argument that asserted that the court a quo had not considered the circumstances that were invoked as the basis for the existence of a principle of necessity situation. The judgement stated that it is clear that “the courts statement of reasons does not show that the court has considered this argument. Thus it is also clear that the Court‘s statement of reasons in so far are inadequate.”

I.

Necessity Defence: International and Foreign Law:

http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/ltavd1/filer/nl-20050520028.html&emne=n%F8drett*&#17 99 http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/ltavd1/filer/sf-200106290723.html&emne=n%F8drett*& 100 http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/lr/lre/le-2012-076983.html&emne=n%F8drett*& 98

20

a. The rationale of the necessity defense is not that a person, when faced with the pressure of circumstances of nature, lacks the mental element which the crime in question requires. Rather, it is this reason of public policy: the law ought to promote the achievement of higher values at the expense of lesser values, and sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law.101 b. The principle of the necessity defence is rooted in common law and any accused pleading to necessity argues that their actions were justified or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants who plead to necessity – whether common law necessity, political necessity (civil disobedience) or military necessity argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as being criminal, because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm.

As argued in The Necessity Defense in Civil Disobedience Cases: Bring in the Jury, by William P. Quigley: J.

a. [..] The doctrine of necessity, with its inevitable weighing of choices of evil, holds that certain conduct, though it violates the law and produces harm, is justified because it averts a greater evil and hence produces a net social gain or benefit to society.102 b. Glanville Williams expressed the necessity doctrine this way: “[S]ome acts that would otherwise be wrong are rendered rightful by a good purpose, or by the necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils.”103 He offers this example: “Suppose that a dike threatens to give way, and the actor is faced with the choice of either making a breach in the dike, which he knows will result in one or two people being drowned, or doing nothing, in which case he knows that the dike will burst at another point involving a whole town in sudden destruction. In such a situation, where there is an unhappy choice between the destruction of one life and the destruction of many, utilitarian philosophy would certainly justify the actor in preferring the lesser evil.”104 K. In Nuclear War, Citizen Intervention, and the Necessity Defense105, Robert Aldridge and Virginia Stark, document numerous cases of Common Law and Civil Disobedience Necessity Defence Cases which resulted in Innocence verdicts or severe Mitigation of Sentencing.

Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing: L.

WAYNE R. LAFAVE, CRIMINAL LAW, § 5.4, at 477 (3d ed. 2000).

See Joseph J. Simeone, “Survivors” of the Eternal Sea: A Short True Story, 45 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 1123, 1141 (2001).

103 GLANVILLE WILLIAMS, THE SANCTITY OF LIFE AND THE CRIMINAL LAW 198 (1957).

104 Glanvill Williams, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law 198 (1957). At 199-200 105 http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1887&context=lawreview 101 102

21

a. In Regina v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, three crew members and a cabin boy escaped a shipwreck to spend eighteen days on a boat, over 1,000 miles from land, with no water and only two one pound tins of turnips. After four days, they caught and ate a small turtle. That was the only food that they had eaten prior to the twentieth day of being lost at sea. Ultimately, two of the crew members killed the ailing cabin boy and “fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four days.” Four days later, they were rescued. Two of the men were charged with murder. The court found that the cabin boy would likely have died by the time they were rescued and that the crew members, but for their conduct, would probably have died as well. The Queen's Bench Division Judges held that the defendants were guilty of murder in killing the cabin boy and stated that their obvious necessity was no defence. The defendants were sentenced to death, but this was subsequently commuted to six months' imprisonment. b. In Spakes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the Texas Criminal Appeals Court allowed the jury to be instructed on the necessity defense before deliberating the verdict for an inmate whose three cellmates had planned an escape and threatened to slit his throat if he did not accompany them. The defendant inmate argued that because of the terribly violent crimes of which his cellmates had been convicted (one had bragged about chopping his girlfriend up with an ax), it was a necessity that he break the law, by accompanying them in their escape. c. In United States v. Ashton, 24 F. Cas. 873, 873-74 (C.C.D. Mass 1834) (No. 14,470), sailors prosecuted for mutiny were found not guilty, after arguing the necessity for their mutiny based upon the dangerously leaky ship and that this danger had been concealed from them until after they left port. Circuit Justice Story found them not guilty of mutiny. d. In United States v. Holmes, 26 F. Cas. 360 (E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383), Holmes was involved in a shipwreck, where the crew were charged with manslaughter for throwing sixteen passengers overboard in a frantic attempt to lighten a sinking lifeboat. The Prosecutor argued the passengers should be protected at all costs, whereas the Defence placed the jurors in the sinking lifeboat with the defendant. The Defendant was found guilty, but the jurors requested leniency, to which the court complied by sentencing the defendant to six months in prison and a fine of twenty dollars. e. In the 1919 Arizona decision of State v. Wooten, commonly referred to as the Bisbee Deportation case, Professor Morris106 describes the acquittal of a Sherrif based upon the “necessity” for committing Kidnapping.

Norval Morris, The Verswami Story, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 948, 989 (1985); see also The Law of Necessity as Applied in the Bisbee Deportation Case.

106

22

f. In Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (1853), a large fire threatened the unburned half of the then small town of San Francisco. A public officer ordered the destruction of houses to create a firebreak and was subsequently sued by one of the owners. On appeal, the California Supreme Court held that the action was proper because: â&#x20AC;&#x153;The right to destroy property, to prevent the spread of a conflagration, has been traced to the highest law of necessity, and the natural rights of man, independent of society and the civil government. "It is referred by moralists and jurists as the same great principle which justifies the exclusive appropriation of a plank in a shipwreck, though the life of another be sacrificed; with the throwing overboard goods in a tempest, for the safety of the vessel; with the trespassing upon the lands of another, to escape death by an enemy. It rests upon the maxim, Necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private." [Necessity leads to privileges because of private justice].â&#x20AC;?

Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing: M.

a. In the United States, 23 cases of left wing/liberal political protestors necessity defence cases have resulted in innocence or severe mitigation of sentencing, whereas only 1 case of right wing/conservative political protestors cases have resulted in innocence or severe mitigation of sentencing. b. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti Nuclear (10): State v. Mouer (Columbia Co. Dist.

Ct., Dec. 12-16, 1977), People v. Brown (Lake County, Jan. 1979); People v. Block (Galt Judicial Dist., Sacramento Co. Mun. Ct., Aug. 14, 1979); California v.

Lemnitzer, No. 27106E (Pleasanton-Livermore Mun. Ct. Feb. 1, 1982); State v.

McMillan, No. D 00518 (San Luis Obispo Jud. Dist. Mun. Ct., Cal. Oct. 13, 1987); Massachusetts v. Schaeffer-Duffy (Worcester Dist. Ct. 1989); West Valley City v.

Hirshi, No. 891003031-3 MC (Salt Lake County, Ut. Cir. Ct., W. Valley Dept. 1990); Washington v. Brown, No. 85-1295N (Kitsap County Dist. Ct. N. 1985); California v. Jerome, Nos. 5450895, 5451038, 5516177, 5516159 (Livermore-Pleasanton Mun. Ct., Alameda County, Traffic Div. 1987); Washington v. Karon, No. J85-1136-39 (Benton County Dist. Ct. 1985) Left Wing/Liberal: Anti US Central American Foreign Policy (3); Vermont v. Keller, No. 1372-4-84-CNCR (Vt. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 1984); People v. Jarka, Nos. 002170, 002196-002212, 00214, 00236, 00238 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Apr. 15, 1985); Colorado v. Bock (Denver County Ct. June 12, 1985) c.

d. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti-Military Industrial Complex (4): Michigan v.

Jones et al., Nos. 83-101194-101228 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1984); Michigan v.

Largrou, Nos. 85-000098, 99, 100, 102 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1985); Massachusetts v. Carter, No. 86-45 CR 7475 (Hampshire Dist. Ct. 1987); Illinois v.

Fish (Skokie Cir. Ct. Aug. 1987) 23

e. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti-Apartheid (3): Chicago v. Streeter, Nos. 85108644, 48, 49, 51, 52, 120323, 26, 27 (Cir. Ct., Cook County Ill. May 1985); Washington v. Heller (Seattle Mun. Ct. 1985); Washington v. Bass, Nos. 4750-038, 395 to -400 (Thurston County Dist. Ct. April 8, 1987) f. Left Wing/Liberal: Pro-Environment/Cycling (1): People v. Gray, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 861-62 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1991) g. Left Wing/Liberal: AIDS: Clean Needles Campaign (2) California v.

Halem, No. 135842 (Berkeley Mun. Ct. 1991); In 1993, a jury acquitted a Chicago AIDS activist charged with illegally supplying clean needles because of the necessity defense.107 h. Right Wing/Conservative: Anti-Abortion (1): In 1990, in Omaha, Nebraska, a jury acquitted seventeen anti-abortion protestors because of the necessity defense. The trial judge relied on the defense to overturn the trespassing convictions of an additional eighteen defendants.108 i. Neutral: Anti-Corruption (1): In 1988, a North Carolina court acquitted two Tuscarora Indians of charges in connection with their taking of twenty hostages at the office of a local newspaper to protest the alleged corruption of county officials.109 j. Neutral: Anti-Alcohol Advertising (1): In 1991, a Chicago jury acquitted a Catholic priest of criminal charges for damage to the inner-city neighborhood where he was pastor after he admitted painting over three tobacco- and alcohol-related billboards. The defendant argued he should not be convicted because of the necessity defense. The jury deliberated ninety minutes before acquitting the defendant.110 k. Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law: l. Crimes of War111 and Diakona112 define military necessity as: â&#x20AC;&#x153;a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws

Andrew Fegelman, AIDS Activist Found Innocent of Charges in Needle Exchange, CHI. TRIB., Jan. 28, 1993, at 4.

Judge Says Actions of Anti-abortionists at Clinic Justified, OMAHA WORLD-HERALD, July 17, 1990. In a seventeen-page order discussing necessity and the priority of life over property rights, District Judge Robert Burkard reversed the convictions for trespassing. An additional seventeen abortion protestors were acquitted by a jury on similar grounds in June 2000.

109 Two Carolina Indians Acquitted in Hostage Taking, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 15, 1988, at 9.

110 Terry Wilson, Acquittal Answers Pflegerâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s Prayers, CHI. TRIB., July 3, 1991, at 3.

111 http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/military-necessity/ 112 http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=888 107 108

24

of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL.” m. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of War Crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and published an open letter113 containing his findings. In a section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes" he did not call it military necessity but summed up the term: “Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).”

N.

Military Necessity Justifies use of Nuclear Weapons for Self-Preservation:

a. In the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of 8 July 1996, on The legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons114, the final paragraph states “that such threat or use would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law. The opinion went on to state, however, that the court “cannot lose sight of the fundamental right of every State to survival, and thus its right to resort to selfdefence . . . when its survival is at stake.” The court held, by seven votes to seven, with its president‘s casting vote, that it “cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self defence in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

O.

Military Necessity in Nuremberg German High Command Trial:

a. In the Trial of Wilhelm von Leeb and Thirteen Others: United States Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 30th December, 1947 – 28 the October, 1948115 b. Wilhelm von Leeb and the other thirteen accused in this case were former high-ranking officers in the German Army and Navy, and officers holding high positions in the German High Command (OKW) were charged with Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and with Conspiracy to commit such crimes. The War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity charged against them included murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war and of the civilian population http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BBB899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf 114 http://www.un.org/law/icjsum/9623.htm 115 http://www.worldcourts.com/imt/eng/decisions/1948.10.28_United_States_v_von_Leeb.pdf 113

25

in the occupied territories and their use in prohibited work; discrimination against and persecution and execution of Jews and other sections of the population by the Wehrmacht in co-operation with the Einsatzgruppen and Sonderkommandos of the SD, SIPO and the Secret Field Police; plunder and spoliation and the enforcement of the slave labour programme of the Reich. c. They were acquitted of some of the charges, where it was ascertained that military necessity existed objectively and/or subjectively in the particular circumstances. d. The Tribunal argued that “The devastation prohibited by the Hague Rules and the usages of war is that not warranted by military necessity. This rule is clear enough but the factual determination as to what constitutes military necessity is difficult. Defendants in this case were in many instances in retreat under arduous conditions wherein their commands were in serious danger of being cut off. Under such circumstances, a commander must necessarily make quick decisions to meet the particular situation of his command. A great deal of latitude must be accorded to him under such circumstances. What constitutes devastation beyond military necessity in these situations requires detailed proof of an operational and tactical nature. We do not feel that in this case the proof is ample to establish the guilt of any defendant herein on this charge.” e. Thus, in dealing with Reinhardt's alleged responsibility for plunder and spoliation, the Tribunal said: “The evidence on the matter of plunder and spoliation shows great ruthlessness, but we are not satisfied that it shows beyond a reasonable doubt, acts that were not justified by military necessity.”

P.

Military Necessity: The Rendulic Rule: Importance of the Subjective Test:

a. In The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, Gary D Solis provides an overview of the Rendulic Rule116 in evaluation of the subjective test in evaluating a defence of Military Necessity: b. “In October 1944, Generaloberst Lothar Rendulic was Armed Forces Commander North, which included command of Nazi Forces in Norway. (Between World Wars I and II, Rendulic had practiced law in his native Austria.) Following World War II, he was prosecuted for, among other charges, issuing an order “for the complete destruction of all shelter and means of existence in, and the total evacuation of the entire civilian population of the northern Norwegian province of Finmark...” Entire villages were destroyed, bridges and highways bombed, and port installations wrecked. Tried by an American military commission, Rendulic's defence was military necessity. He presented evidence that the Norwegian population would not voluntarily evacuate and that rapidly approaching Russian The Hostages Trial: Trial of Wilhelm List and Others; United States Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 8 July 1947 - 19 February 1948 116

26

forces would use existing housing as shelter and exploit the local population's knowledge of the area to the detriment of retreating German forces. The Tribunal acquitted Rendulic of the charge, finding reasonable his belief that military necessity mandated his orders. His case offers one of the few adjudicated views of what constitutes military necessity. c.

From the Tribunals opinion:

d. “Military necessity has been invoked by the defendant's as justifying.. the destruction of villages and towns in an occupied territory... The destruction of property to be lawful must be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war...

There must be some reasonable connection between the destruction of property and the overcoming of the enemy forces. It is lawful to destroy railways, lines of communication, or any other property that might be utilized by the enemy. Private homes and churches even may be destroyed if necessary for military operations. It does not admit the wanton devastation of a district or the wilful infliction of suffering upon its inhabitants for the sake of suffering alone... e. “The evidence shows that the Russians had very excellent troops in pursuit of the Germans. Two or three land routes were open to them as well as landings by sea behind German lines... The information obtained concerning the intentions of the Russians was limited.. It was with this situation confronting him that he carried out the "scorched earth" policy in the Norwegian province of Finmark.. The destruction was as complete as an efficient army could do it... f. “There is evidence in the record that there was no military necessity for this destruction and devastation. An examination of the facts in retrospect can well sustain this conclusion. But we are obliged to judge the situation as it appeared to the defendant at the time. If the facts were such as would justify the action by the exercise of judgement, after giving consideration to all the factors and existing possibilities, even though the conclusion reached may have been faulty, it cannot be said to be criminal. After giving careful consideration to all the evidence on the subject, we are convinced that the defendant cannot be held criminally responsible although when viewed in retrospect, the danger did not actually exist.... g. “..... We are not called upon to determine whether urgent military necessity for the devastation and destruction in the province of Finmark actually existed. We are concerned with the question whether the defendant at the time of its occurrence acted within the limits of honest judgement on the basis of the conditions prevailing at the time. The course of a military operation by the enemy is loaded with uncertainties... It is our considered opinion that the conditions, as they appeared to the defendant at the time, were sufficient upon which he could honestly conclude that urgent military necessity warranted the decision made. This

27

being true, the defendant may have erred in the exercise of his judgement but he was guilty of no criminal act. We find the defendant not guilty of the charge. h. The Rendulic standard remains unchanged. Fifty-four years later, in 2003, the ICTY wrote: “In determining whether an attack was proportionate it is necessary to examine whether a reasonably well-informed person in the circumstances of the actual perpetrator, making reasonable use of the information available to him or her, could have expected excessive civilian casualties to result from the attack.”117 Q.

Military Necessity: Rendulic Rule: Subjective Honesty in current Military

Doctrine: a. In Unexpected Consequences From Knock-On Effects: A Different Standard for Computer Network Operations?118, Eric Talbot Jensen writes: b. “The standard the Court held General Rendulic to was the requirement to give "consideration to all factors and existing possibilities" as they "appeared to the defendant at the time."” c. “Note that the requirement to give consideration to all factors and existing possibilities is balanced with the overarching constraint of taking facts as they appear at the time of the decision. Must the commander remain in inaction until he feels he has turned over every stone in search of that last shred of information concerning all factors and possibilities that might affect his decision? The answer must be "no." Instead, he must act in good faith and, in accordance with GPI, do everything feasible to get this information.”

R.

Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity?:

a. In South African law the Onus of Proof lies on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity. b. In S v Pretorius 1975 (2) SA 85 (SWA) Judge AJ Le Grange found that “The onus of proof in a defence of necessity as in self-defence rests on the State to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity. It is not for the accused to satisfy the court that she acted from necessity (p 293). .. (proceed) by gathering an objective view of the circumstances from the evidence itself, and the magistrate‘s finding whether the prevailing circumstances were “alarming” if viewed objectively…. Viewed objectively… was the accused confronted with a situation that …… lives were in danger…. c. “[90] [If the evidence gives a picture of threatening danger and fear, which gave rise to necessity and which would have justified the accused‘s conduct, The Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic - Case No. IT-98-29-T, 05 December 2003 http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/jud_supplement/supp46-e/galic.htm 118 http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=auilr 117

28

provided the accused did not exceed the limits of necessity…. Proceed to consider whether the proven circumstances satisfy the tests for necessity set out by B & Hunt at p. 285 of their work: (a) the threatening disaster endangered the accused‘s legal interests. This in fact gave rise to a duty to act. (b) the danger was threatening and imminent. The fact that symptoms relating to the danger may only appear later does not detract from the situation… if it cannot immediately be ascertained whether or not the symptoms are dangerous, necessity arises… (d) the chances that harm would have resulted and it would have been of a serious nature.. the greater the harm, the greater the necessity…” d. If Norwegian law also places the Onus of Proof to lie on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity; it would appear that the Prosecutor‘s decision to “refuse to touch the principle of necessity” should weigh heavily in the Defendant‘s favour.

14.28 28 August – 06 September 2012: No Response from the Norwegian Supreme Court: A. On 28 August 2012, I contacted the Supreme Court Registrar with a request for a Case Number for my application for Review of the Oslo District Court’s Brievik Judgement.

B. On 31 August 2012, I again contacted the Supreme Court Registrar with a request for a Case Number for my application for Review of the Oslo District Court’s Brievik Judgement.

14.29 02 September 2012: Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court Registrar: A. On 02 September 2012, I submitted a complaint (PDF119) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing / Failure to Provide Case

Processing by Supreme Court Registrar; to Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’.

B. 10 September 2012: Response from Supreme Court Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: No Legal Standing: a. On 11 September 2012, I was informed of the decision by Supreme Court of Norway: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby in: Application for review of Oslo District Court Judgement of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24). b. Secretary General Bergby implied that my application was an ‘Appeal’, and stated that I lacked legal standing, because I was not a ‘party to the case’. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority “are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these”.

119

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120902_po-scr?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage

29

14.30

11 Sep 2012: Response to Supreme Court: Secretary General:

A. On 11 September 2012, applicant responded (PDF120) to Secretary General Gunnar Bergby. Applicant requested the Secretary General to provide her with the relevant statute in Norway that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court?

B. Applicant argued that it was for the court to decide the matter of locus standi, not the Secretary General; citing Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited v. EFTA Surveillance Authority121 (Case E-2/94); Private Barnehagers

Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority, supported by Kingdom of Norway (Case E-5/07)122; and Hans Chr. Bugge, Professor of Environmental Law at the Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo, in his article: General background: Legal remedies and locus standi in Norwegian law123: “There is no clear definition or delimitation of the concept. Whether a person has "legal interest" is decided discretionary in each case, and depends on individual circumstances.”

C. Applicant clarified her application was not an ‘Appeal’, which ‘locus standi’ was restricted to the ‘parties in the specific case’, but one of Certiorari/Review, where her locus standi/legal standing was based upon her being a member of a group of activists: known as political necessity activists, who have ‘legal interest’ in the judgement, due to its violations of ECHR Article 13 and 14, and its necessity ruling was not sufficiently precise, as required in Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom124, in order to allow Political Necessity Activists to regulate their activism in accordance with the law.

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-09-11_resp_nsc_secgen_gunnarbergby_decision-dated09-09-12_encl.pdf 121 “The Court finds that this principle must also apply when considering … whether a measure is reviewable and who has locus standi to bring an action for annulment of a decision.” (11) http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/E-2-94_Judgment.pdf 122 The court finds…. “In Husbanken I, it was sufficient for the association whose complaint had been at the origin of the case to show that the legitimate interests of its members were affected by the decision, by affecting their position on the market; and that in this case, where the decision was a decision not to object to State aid, locus standi could even arise alone from the facts that the association was, as a representative of its members, at the origin of the complaint, that it was heard in the procedure and that information was gathered from the State in question” (66) http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/E5_07_Report_for_the_Hearing_FINAL_revised.pdf 123 “The general criterion for locus standi in civil court cases in Norway is that the plaintiff must have "legal interest" in the case.( Art. 54 of the Civil Proceedings Act.) The dispute must be a live controversy, and the plaintiff must have a sufficiently close connection to the subject matter so as to justify the court's treatment of the dispute. There is no clear definition or delimitation of the concept. Whether a person has "legal interest" is decided discretionary in each case, and depends on individual circumstances. The core question to ask is whether the person has reasonable grounds for having the issue tried by a court. To have "legal interest" to have a matter tried by the courts, the plaintiff must be affected by the matter to such an extent that it justifies the use of the court system. Interests which are only based on public or common rights, such as the public right of way, may be accepted if they are strong enough.” http://www-user.unibremen.de/~avosetta/buggeaccessnorw02.pdf 124 The rule of law requires legislation (or judgements or court officials decision-making) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom).

Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 120

30

D. The Oslo District Courts ‘Breivik Judgement’, discriminated against Breivik, by denying him a Free and Fair Subjective and Objective Test Enquiry into his Necessity evidence; and set a discriminatory legal precedent against future Norwegian Political Necessity activists, and furthermore due to the international prominence of the trial on the world stage, the Judgement sent a publicity message that a Court could deny an Accused pleading to Necessity, a Free and Fair Subjective and Objective Test Enquiry into their Necessity evidence, on the world stage.

E. Denying Mr. Breivik his right to an objective and subjective test of his necessity evidence, set a legal precedent where environmental, immigrant, religious or other necessity activists are also denied their right to an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence (or can due to ignorance from the Breivik trial’s publicity, deny themselves, by lacking the knowledge to assert their right thereto).

F. Applicants was consequently demanding her Article 13 Right to an Effective Remedy, and in terms of Article 14: to Prohibit this Discriminatory Erroneous Necessity Ruling against Breivik, herself and other Necessity Activists.

G. The applicant confirmed that the principle of an Application for Review existed in Norwegian courts, as documented by (1) Former President of Norwegian Supreme Court Justice Carsten Smith125, (2) Chief Justice of the Norway Supreme Court: Tore Schei126; and (3) Supreme Court Justice: Karen Bruzelius127.

H. Applicant requested that her Application be interpreted in terms of Article 13 ECHR read in conjunction with Protocol 7 ECHR and the EFTA Courts Judicial Review Posten Norge Judgement128; effectively interpreted as the Right to Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision or a Court Order.

14.31 A.

08 October 2012, 2nd Request to Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: Applicant sent a reminder request to Secretary General Bergby.

Judicial Review of Parliamentary Legislation: Norway as a European pioneer" (Amicus Curiae, Issue 32, November 2000) 4 October 2007 letter to President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Justice Schei discusses how “... we will give a brief overview of the system of judicial review in Norway.."

127 Supreme Court Justice: Karen Bruzelius's letter to the Council of Europe, Venice Commission, where she elucidates on "Judicial Review within a Unified Court System" 128 The EFTA court at Luxembourg (interpreting the Agreement on the European Economic Area with regard to the EFTA States party to the Agreement: presently Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) Posten Norge Judgement9 (Case E-15/10), ruled on the application of judicial review in competition law. It concluded that the criminal provisions providing for guarantee of judicial review are greater than for competition law (83). The established case law of the European Union courts on judicial review of competition decisions is compatible with guarantees laid down by Article 6(1) ECHR, which limits competition law judicial reviews to complex matters (83). In a courts review of a complex matter, it is sufficient for the court to establish whether the evidence put forward for appraisal of the complex matter is factually accurate, reliable, consistent, and contains all the relevant data that must be taken into consideration in appraising the complex situation, and is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it (83). Not only must the court determine whether the evidence relied upon is factually accurate, reliable and consistent, but also whether that evidence contains all the information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it (99). http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/15_10_JUDGMENT.pdf 125 126

31

14.32 03 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint of Supreme Crt Registrar Slow Case Processing: A. On 03 November 2012, applicant filed a complaint (PDF129) of Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby.

14.33 15 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman Rules that Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby’s ‘Administrative Decision’ is a “Decision of a Court of Law’: A.

On 15 November 2012, the Parliamentary Ombudsman responded to Complaint on Supreme Court of Norway (PDF130), declining to investigate it, because “the Storting's Ombudsman for Public Administration, section 4, first paragraph, litra c), decisions of the courts of law can not be handled by the Ombudsman”.

Contradictions between Parliamentary Ombudsman’s “Slow Case Processing” by Courts Administrative Officials of (a) 11 July 2012 Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat: Espen Eiken, and (b) 15 November 2012: Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby.

14.34

In the 11 July 2012 Parliamentary Ombudsman ruling: Lack of Response from the Supervisory Committee for Judges; in response to a complaint of Slow case processing from the Supervisory Committee for Judges, the Ombudsman’s directions were to “submit "a written request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, where you call for answers to your applications. If you do not receive a response to this request within a reasonable time, you can contact the Ombudsman, with an enclosed copy of the last request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere."”

A.

B. The Parliamentary Ombudsman clearly believed they had the authority to require the Supreme Court Administration: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat, to provide the applicant with due process, processing of her complaints against Judges Opsahl, Arntzen and Schei.

C.

In the 15 November 2012 the Parliamentary Ombudsman responded to Complaint on Supreme Court of Norway; in response to a complaint of “Slow Case

Processing by Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: Re: Request for Statute Granting Sec Gen Authority to make ruling on Legal Standing ”; the Ombudsman’s directions are that “decisions of the courts of law can not be handled by the Ombudsman.”

D. Here the Parliamentary Ombudsman, chose to interpret the erroneous ‘locus standi’ administrative decision by Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, as a “decision of a court of law”, and hence to deny themselves the authority to require 129 130

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121103_po-nsc http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-15_2012-1943_supreme_court_of_norway.pdf

32

Secretary General Gunnar Bergby to provide Applicant with a response to her question requesting the Statute granting a Secretary General the authority to make a ruling on legal standing.

III. Statement of alleged violation(s) of the Convention and/or Protocols and of relevant arguments 15.1

Discrimination: Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement:

15.2 The Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling, by Judge’s Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Arne Lyng; and Lay Judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012, violates Article 14 Prohibition of Discrimination and Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial.

15.3 The Necessity ruling states that necessity statutes ‘prohibit the killing of government or politically active young people’; irrespective of the fact that: A. No reference was made during court proceedings by any party alleging that any Norwegian or International specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity; and B. The Necessity Judgement ruling fails to cite any International or Norwegian specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibiting the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity.

C. Necessity criminal statutes do not specifically allow or disallow the killing of government or politically active young people, but provide for an objective and subjective test that examines each alleged criminal act to objectively and subjectively determine whether necessity existed, or the defendant honestly believed it existed, within the particular criminal act‘s relevant circumstances.

14.35 The Necessity Judgement endorses the court, prosecution and defence counsel failure to conduct the required subjective and objective tests to examine the evidence for the Defendant‘s necessity motivations to determine (I) objectively whether the defendant‘s Necessity claims – simplistically rephrased as – “Titanic Europe is on a demographic/immigration collision course with Islam Iceberg” were reasonable; and (II) secondly whether the defendant subjectively sincerely perceived the Titanic Europe/Islam Iceberg circumstances this way, in accordance to the Military Necessity Rendulic Rule.

33

14.36 The Judgement fails to disclose Norwegian law‘s Onus of Proof requirements in a case of necessity: i.e. upon which party – Defendant or State does the Onus of Proof lie in case of Necessity? If the proof in a defense of necessity, ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, lies on the State, and the State failed to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, the accused claim of necessity stands.

14.37 It is clear that the Court's statement of reasons does not show the results of the courts objective and subjective enquiry into the Defendant‘s claim of necessity. Thus, it is also clear that the Court's statement of reasons for its “necessity finding of guilt”, are inadequate. Hence the finding of guilt needs to be set aside for further evidence to objectively and subjective evaluate the defendants necessity defence.

14.38 Finally if the Courts statement of reasons remain uncorrected, they would set a bad precedent, encouraging other courts to deny necessity defendants their rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity defence, including denying the defendant information clarifying upon whom the Onus of Proof in a defence of necessity lies.

14.39 The discriminatory ‘Necessity ruling’, in response to Prosecutor Engh and Holden’s refusal to “touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity” sets a Norwegian legal precedent, which if upheld will set a legal precedent denying future necessity activists, a right to a fair trial, since it is based on two unequivocal legal falsehoods: (a) necessity activists have no right to an objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity defense evidence; and (b) necessity statutory provisions prohibit the killing of government officials or civilians.

14.40 The Necessity ruling, also sets an international intellectual and psychological precedent, due to the international publicity it received, by publicizing these legal ‘Necessity’ trial falsehoods, as allegedly true and correct, and thereby educating citizens and future necessity activists that (a) they have no right to an objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity defense evidence; and (b) necessity statutory provisions prohibit the killing of government officials or civilians.

14.41 The Necessity ruling – particularly as a result of the international uncritical publicity it received -- creates confusion and obfuscation by contradicting all other necessity precedents, but providing no legal precedent justifications for its conclusions; thereby the most well known necessity precedent for the average layperson, is the one based upon falsehoods and totally lacking in legal justifications. This is a violation of the Right to an Effective: clear, succinct, legally justified precedent, to enable laypersons and necessity activists to respectively effectively understand, plan and regulate their activism in accordance with the law.

34

15.4

Denied Right to an Effective Remedy by Supreme Court Sec. Gen. Bergby:

15.5 The 10 September 2012 administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement were violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy.

15.6 Secretary General Bergby’s refusal to process my Application for Review, in the absence of a due process impartial enquiry into the merits of the application; by (1) pretending not to understand the difference between an Appeal and a Review, and (2) pretending that I had no locus standi (legal standing) to file an Application for Review, while refusing to provide me with the relevant Norwegian statute that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court were violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy.

15.7

Discrimination by Supreme Court Sec Gen. Bergby:

15.8 Secretary General Gunnar Bergby’s decisions and actions to refuse to process Applicants Application for Review, denying Applicant her right to an effective remedy to address the errors and irregularities regarding the Courts ‘Necessity’ judgement, were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against anyone, including Cultural Conservatives.

15.9 Everyone, irrespective of their extreme left or extreme right ideology, who pleads to necessity should be entitled to an objective and subjective test of their respective necessity evidence. It is blatant discrimination for a Prosecutor and a Judge to publicly endorse the denial of a ‘right wing’ accused’s ‘necessity’ evidence to be subjectively and objectively examined.

15.10 When a court sets such a discriminatory irregular and erroneous legal precedent, such a precedent can be used to deny other necessity activists their due process rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity evidence.

15.11 I subsequently filed a Complaint of Slow Case Processing to the Parliamentary Ombudsman 15.12

Denied Right to an Effective Remedy by Parliamentary Ombudsman:

15.13 The 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision denying Applicant’s access to the court and an effective remedy, was an official ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, was a violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy.

35

15.14 Secretary General Bergby’s 10 September 2012 administrative decision to refuse to process Applicants application, due to alleged lack of ‘locus standi’; and subsequent refusal to provide any statutory authority granting him the right to deny applicant access to a court for a full due process impartial enquiry into the merits of her legal standing; was made without a full impartial due process enquiry into the merits of the application, therefore denying applicant an effective remedy to her application.

15.15 The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision to refuse to order Secretary General Bergby to either (a) process applicants application, or (b) provide applicant with the relevant statutory authority granting him the authority to deny applicants application based upon an un-investigated allegation of lack of legal standing; denies applicant access to a court, and an effective remedy to impartially determine (a) the status of applicants legal standing, and if so (b) her allegations of irregularity regarding the Oslo Courts ‘Necessity’ judgement.

15.16

Discrimination by Parliamentary Ombudsman:

15.17 The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s (a) ruling of 11 July 2012, in the complaint of ‘Slow Case Processing’ by Courts Administration Official: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat: Espen Eiken, contradicts the (b) ruling of 15 November 2012, in the complaint of ‘Slow Case Processing’ by Courts Administration Official: Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby.

15.18 In the 11 July 2012 Parliamentary Ombudsman ruling they believed they had the authority to remedy slow case processing administrative decision making by the Supreme Court Administration: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat, yet in the 15 November 2012 the Parliamentary Ombudsman ruling they now believed that they did not have the authority to remedy slow case processing administrative decision making by the Supreme Court Administration.

15.19 It is alleged the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s 15 November 2012 decision to refuse to address Applicants Slow Case Processing complaint by ordering Director General Bergby to either (a) process applicants application, or (b) provide applicant with the relevant statutory authority granting him the authority to deny applicants application based upon an un-investigated allegation of lack of legal standing; were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against anyone, including Cultural Conservatives.

Prohibition of Discrimination: Motive for Denial of Effective Remedy’s: Political & Ideological Discrimination: 15.20

36

15.21 Applicant asserts that Supreme Court, Deputy Secretary General Nygaard, Secretary General Bergby, the Supervisory Committee for Judges and the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s legal gymnastics decision-making are motivated by either their (A) own personal Liberal/Left Wing prejudice towards Breivik / right wing cultural conservatives, as alleged by Breivik, (B) their -- lack of intellectual backbone - inability to withstand Liberal/Left Wing Politically Correct Peer Pressure endorsing political, media, and legal discrimination against right wing conservatives, and anyone who speaks up for the rights of extreme right wing conservatives (Norway, Pakistan, India, Malaysia and South Korea are culturally the strictest conformists, with the least resistance to cultural and political or ideological peer pressure131).

15.22 It is possible their discriminatory decision-making towards denying Applicant the ability to support the rule of law and a free and fair trial for a right wing conservative terrorist, are a result of their paranoid fear of impartially objectively and subjective investigating the evidence of Breivik’s necessity defense, (a) fearing that some of Breivik’s allegations may in fact be found to be factually correct; and/or (b) their knowledge that some of Breivik’s allegations are in fact factually correct, and/or (c) their conformist inability to resist the Norwegian Politically Correct narrative, and (d) hence the need to obediently conform and deny any investigation of Breivik’s allegations, which would expose these realities.

15.23 If Norwegian Officials sincerely believed that Breivik’s Resist Eurabia ideology, discrimination against, and censorship of cultural conservatives allegations were an absolute bunch of nonsense, totally and utterly without any factual basis, their would be no need to fear an objective and subjective test of Breivik’s necessity defense evidence, since it would be exposed as erroneous and unjustified.

IV. Statement relative to article 35 § 1 of the Convention [16.]

Final decision (date, court or authority and nature of decision)

16.1 10 September 2012: Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: Refusal to process Applicants 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement, citing lack of ‘locus standi’ and subsequent refusal to provide statutory authority for ‘locus standi’ decision-making authority. (Appealed to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing)

Norwegians give each other little room for manoeuvre http://paraplyen.nhh.no/paraplyen/arkiv/2011/juni/norwegians/ 131

37

[17.]

17. Other decisions (list in chronological order, giving date, court or authority and nature of decision for each of them) 17.1 15 May 2012: Norway Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General Kjersti Buun Nygaard: Refusal to process Applicants 10 May 2012 Application for Review.

(Appealed to Supervisory Committee for Judges) 17.2 24 August 2012: Oslo District Court: Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Arne Lyng; and Lay Judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff: Breivik Judgement: Finding of Guilt in absence of Objective and Subjective Test examination of Breivik’s Necessity evidence.

17.3 10 September 2012: Environmental Appeals Board: Hans Chr. Bugge, Morten Hugo Berger, Andreas Pihlstrom, Karl Kristensen, Cecilie Skarning, Ina Lindahl Nyrud: Denial of Request for Access to Environment Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) from (A) 7 Media Publications Editors: RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny, and (B) Bar Association: RE: Norwegian Bar Association’s Anti-Environmental Printed Complaints Policy 17.4 23 October 2012: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Bjorn Hubert Senum: Ruling of ‘obviously unfounded’ in Norwegian – in the absence of any due process impartial enquiry into the merits of the complaint.

17.5 15 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: Finding that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision denying Applicant’s access to the court and an effective remedy, was an official ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’.

17.6 27 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Annette Dahl: Finding that “The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.”

[18.]

18. Is there or was there any other appeal or other remedy available to you which you have not used? If so, explain why you have not used it.

18.1 Appealed the Norway Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General Kjersti Buun Nygaard 15 May 2012 refusal to process Applicants 10 May 2012 Application for Review, to the Supervisory Committee for Judges, on the grounds of failure of Judicial Ethics by Chief Justice Tore Schei (authorising Nygaard’s decision).

18.2 Appealed the Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby 10 September 2012 refusal to process Applicants 27 August 2012, Application for

38

Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement, citing lack of ‘locus standi’ and subsequent refusal to provide statutory authority for ‘locus standi’ decisionmaking authority, to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, on the grounds of slow case processing and obstruction to case processing.

V. Statement of the object of the application [19.]

The Oslo District Courts 24 August 2012 Breivik Judgement Discriminatory Necessity ruling: 19.1 sets a Norwegian legal precedent, which if upheld will set a legal precedent denying future necessity activists, a right to a fair trial, since it is based on two unequivocal legal falsehoods: (a) necessity activists have no right to an objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity defense evidence; and (b) necessity statutory provisions prohibit the killing of government officials or civilians.

19.2 creates confusion and obfuscation by contradicting all other International legally justified necessity precedents, but providing no legal precedent justifications for its conclusions – as a result of the international uncritical publicity it received -therefore the most well known Internationally necessity precedent for the average layperson, is the one based upon falsehoods and totally lacking in legal justifications.

19.3 sets an international intellectual and psychological Discriminatory precedent against all Political Necessity activists, due to the uncritical international publicity it received, by publicizing these legal ‘Necessity’ trial falsehoods, as allegedly true and correct, and thereby implying that necessity activists of any ideological, political, religious or cultural persuasion (a) have no right to an objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity defense evidence; and (b) and if, or where such necessity actions involve the killing of government officials or civilians, that International Human Rights law necessity statutory provisions prohibit the killing of government officials or civilians.

19.4 The Norwegian Necessity Judgement – and its international publicity – discriminates against Necessity Activists, by denying them the Right to an Effective: clear, succinct, legally justified precedent, to enable laypersons and

39

necessity activists to respectively effectively understand, plan and regulate their Necessity activism in accordance with accurate necessity jurisprudence132.

19.5

Consequently, Applicant requests the following Declaratory Orders Relief:

19.6 The Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling133, by Judge’s Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Arne Lyng; and Lay Judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012, violates Article 14 Prohibition of Discrimination and Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial, and consequently to: A. Set Aside the Judgements Discriminatory Irregular ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’134 (pg.67135) for (i) failing to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity; (ii) Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law, (iii) Failure to conduct the required Objective and Subjective Tests of Defendant’s Necessity Defence evidence, renders it a (iv) Discriminatory Necessity Precedent for other Necessity activists to be denied the required Objective and Subjective tests of their necessity evidence, (v) Failure to Clarify upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was sufficient/insufficient; and (vi) ‘Extreme Political objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the absence of an objective and subjective necessity test of the defendants necessity evidence.

B. Set Aside Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) for remittance to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.

C. Alternatively, a Non-Precedent Setting Ruling: If Defendant Breivik prefers to abide by, and socio-politically profit from (as a political martyr), the Oslo District Courts discriminatory Necessity ruling against him, a declaratory order that the Defendant’s failure to uphold his demand that the court objectively and subjectively test his necessity defence evidence, that the Oslo courts discriminatory ‘Necessity Ruling’ is not to be deemed ‘Necessity precedent’, whereby other political

132

In Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom , the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law: “110. As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law", it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras.

66-68).” Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 | Lithgow and Others v. The United Kingdom, 9006/80; 9262/81; 9263/81; 9265/81; 9266/81; 9313/81; 9405/81 , Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 24 June 1986 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57526 “As regards this submission, the Court briefly notes that neither the provisions of the Penal Code concerning necessity nor international human rights, which the defendant also invokes, allow the murder of government employees, politically active youth or others, to further extreme political goals. It is evident that this submission cannot be accepted.” - Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) – Judgment. Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) TOSLO–2011–188627–24E (11–188627MED–OTIR/05).

134 Ibid Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) – Judgment.

135 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120824_nvb-judmnt 133

40

activists can be denied their necessity rights for a court to objectively and subjectively test their necessity evidence.

D. Furthermore, the (i) 10 September 2012, administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement’; and (ii) the 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision, was a ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, thereby justifying his refusal to order Secretary General Bergby to process Applicants Application for Review; were (iii) violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy and an obstruction to the execution of a final judicial decision on the merits of her application, and (iv) were motivated by ideological prejudice towards people who are ‘right wing’, and/or against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against anyone, including Cultural Conservatives.

VI. Statement concerning other international proceedings [20.]

Have you submitted the above complaints to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement? If so, give full details.

20.1

NO.

VII. List of documents [21.]

List of Documents:

A. 15 May 2012: Norway Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General Kjersti Buun Nygaard: Refusal to process 10 May 2012 Application for Review (pp.03).

B. 24 August 2012: Oslo District Court: Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Arne Lyng; and Lay Judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff: Breivik Judgement: Finding of Guilt in absence of Objective and Subjective Test examination of Breivik’s Necessity evidence. (pp.78) C. 27 August 2012: Applicants Application for Review: Notice of Motion (pp.11) and Founding Affidavit to Supreme Court (pp.35) (pp.46)

41

D. 10 September 2012: Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: Refusal to process 27 August 2012, Application for Review. (pp.01) E. 10 September 2012: Environmental Appeals Board: Hans Chr. Bugge, Morten Hugo Berger, Andreas Pihlstrom, Karl Kristensen, Cecilie Skarning, Ina Lindahl Nyrud: Denial of Request for Access to Environment Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) (pp.02) F. 11 September 2012: Response to Secretary General Bergby: Request for Statutory Authority granting authority to refuse application on locus standi (pp.08) G. 23 October 2012: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Bjorn Hubert Senum: Rulings of ‘obviously unfounded’ in Norwegian – in the absence of any due process impartial enquiry into the merits of the complaint. (pp.03 x 3=09) H. 15 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: Finding that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision denying Applicant’s access to the court and an effective remedy, was an official ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’. (pp.01) I. 27 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Annette Dahl: Finding that “The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.” (pp.01)

VIII. Declaration and signature I hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information I have given in the present application form is correct.

Place: GEORGE, SOUTH AFRICA

Date: 10 JANUARY 2013

______________________________________________ Signature of Applicant: Lara Johnstone

42

Annexure “A”

DECISION BY NORWAY SUPREME COURT DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL: KJERSTI BUUN NYGAARD:

-----Original Message----From: Gruer, Helga MĂŚrde [mailto:Helga.Gruer@hoyesterett.no] On Behalf Of HRET (postmottak) Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:41 AM To: 'jmcswan@mweb.co.za' Subject: FW: NO Supreme Crt: Justice Schei, c/o K.Ruud & ST.Andersen: NOBreivik: Supreme Crt Applic for Review & Decl. Order Ms. Lara Johnstone, Reference is made to your e-mails

regarding the above issue.

Please be advised that the Supreme Court of Norway only handles appeals against judgments given by the lower courts and can consequently not deal with the issue mentioned in your e-mails.

Further inquiries from you be answered.

regarding the above issue can not be expected to

Yours sincerely, Kjersti Buun Nygaard Deputy Secretary-General -----Opprinnelig melding----Fra: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sendt: 11. mai 2012 15:20 Til: DA (postmottak); Ruud, Kjersti; Andersen, Svein Tore Emne: [2] RE: NO Supreme Crt: Justice Schei, c/o K.Ruud & ST.Andersen: NOBreivik: Supreme Crt Applic for Review & Decl. Order Mr. Svein Andersen Mr. Kjersti Ruud Could you kindly clarify when the Registrar shall issue a Case Number; or whether you require additional documentation or information?

Sincerely, Lara Johnstone -----Original Message----From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:49 PM To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (postmottak@domstoladministrasjonen.no); Crt: SupremeCrt: Kjersti Ruud (Kjersti.Ruud@hoyesterett.no) ; Crt: SupremeCrt: Info: Svein Tore Andersen (svein.tore.andersen@hoyesterett.no) Subject: NO Supreme Crt: Justice Schei, c/o K.Ruud & ST.Andersen: NOBreivik: Supreme Crt Applic for Review & Decl. Order Chief Justice Tore Schei Post: Postboks 5678 Sluppen 7485 Trondheim

Telefon: 73 56 70 00 | Telefaks: 73 56 70 01 E-post: postmottak@domstoladministrasjonen.no I am still awaiting the Court Registrar to provide me with a Case Number.

Attached are the updated 10 May 2012 Filing Sheet, Notice of Motion, Founding Affidavit and Proof of Service PDF's, with updated respondents.

ORIGINAL PARTY RESPONDENTS: [01] KINGDOM OF NORWAY Prosecution [02] VICTIMS FAMILIES [03] ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK Defendant The other Respondents are: Part A: [04] NO REFUGEE COUNCIL: ELISABETH RASMUSSEN [05] UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR: INDIGENOUS RIGHTS: JAMES ANAYA [06] ELENA: LEG.ADV: FRIHAGEN, RISNES, BLEKASTAD, DAHL [07] ELENA: NOAS: ANDREAS FURUSETH Part B: [08] MINISTER OF CULTURE: ANNIKEN HUITFELDT [09] PROGRESS PARTY: SIV JENSEN [10] CHURCH OF NORWAY: BERIT HAGEN AGOY [11] MUSLIM SOC. OF TRONDHEIM: JJ OKSVOLD [12] NUPI: HELGE LURAS Part C: [13] JUDGE NINA OPSAHL [14] JUDGE WENCHE ELIZABETH ARNTZEN AS DETAILED IN THE 07 MAY 2012 NOTICE OF MOTION & AFFIDAVIT: IN THE NORWAY SUPREME COURT: NORWAY V. BREIVIK NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER & REVIEW Oslo District Court Case #: 11-188627 MED-05 In the Application of: LARA JOHNSTONE Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae In the matter between: KINGDOM OF NORWAY V. ANDERS BREIVIK Please find attached the Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit.

Application requests the Supreme Court to provide the following orders: [A] Applicant to be admitted as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant in this matter, and granted Assistance of Council/Support in this matter from the Norwegian Refugee Council and/or ELENA.

[B] An Order demanding the Norwegian Ministry of Culture to act in accordance to European Court of Human Rights ruling in Lithgow & others v.

United Kingdom, and clarify in adequately accessible and sufficiently precise statement; whether Norway is (A) a 'Children of the Rainbow' State legally committed to Multiculturalism, providing all cultures their right to invoke cultural law and hence granting the Applicant her rights to invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law; or (B) a Monocultural Indigenous European Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State, and that the Labour Party Immigration policy is a tactic to maintain their grip on power, by importing Non-Western immigrants as Labour Party vote-fodder.

[C] To Review the Oslo District Court failure to act in accordance of due process to a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant member of the Radical Honesty culture, in the following applications: a.

The Applicants 30 November 2011 Application for a Writ of [I] Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011. (Annex A) http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus b.

The Applicants 15 April 2012 Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae for an Order (1) to approve the Applicant as an In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amici Curiae, and (2) Amending the Charges Against the Defendant [Breivik] and Applicant [Johnstone] to include Treason in terms of Article 85 of Norwegian Constitution, and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial; to be executed by firing squad. (Annex B) http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that if you intend opposing this application you are required;(a)

to notify applicant in writing on or before 28 MAY 2012; and

(b) within 15 DAYS after you have oppose the application to file your that you are required to appoint in an email address, at which you will documents in these proceedings.

so given notice of your intention to answering affidavit, if any; and further such notification an address, including accept notice and service of all

If no such notice of intention to oppose is given, the applicant will request the Registrar to place the matter before the Chief Justice to be dealt with in terms of the relevant rules in accordance to the Supreme Court Test.

Respectfully Submitted LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 5042 George East, South Africa Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za

Annexure “B”

26.09.2012

1

Utskrift fra Lovdata

Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) – Judgment.

The 22 July case. Criminal law. Murder. Terror. Sanity. Preventive detention. The Penal Code section 147a first subsection paras. a and b, cf. the Penal Code sections 148 first subsection first penalty alternative and 233 first and second subsections, and 233 first and second subsections, cf. section 49, and the Penal Code section 147a first subsection para. b, cf. sections 233 first and second subsections, and 233 first and second subsections, cf. section 49.

A man b. 1979 was sentenced to preventive detention for a term of twenty-one years and a minimum period of ten years for two terror acts by which among other things 77 people were killed.

The defendant killed 8 people while 9 persons were seriously injured when he detonated a car bomb in the Government District in Oslo. The explosion also caused extensive material damage.

The same day the perpetrator killed 69 people, of which the majority were participants at the Workers' Youth League (AUF)-run summer camp at Utøya Island. Most were killed by shooting or as a consequence thereof. In addition 33 youths were seriously injured. Besides the physical injuries a considerable number of people suffered mental aftereffects.

The court found the defendant to be sane, i.e. not psychotic, at the time of crime, and was thereby liable to penalty. The defendant had acknowledged having committed the acts of which he was accused, pleaded not guilty to the charges. (Summary by Lovdata.)

Avsagt: 24.08.2012 i sak TOSLO-2011-188627-24E Saksgang: Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) TOSLO–2011–188627–24E (11–188627MED–OTIR/05). The judgment has legal force.

Parter: The Public prosecuting authority (Public Prosecutor Svein Holden, Public Prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh) vs. A (Advocate Geir Lippestad, Advocate Vibeke Hein Bæra, Advocate Tor Eskild Kvinge Jordet and Assistant Lawyer Odd Ivar Ausnes Grøn.

Dommere: Presiding judge: District Court Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen. Professional judge: District Court Judge Arne Lyng. Lay judges: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo, Anne Elisabeth Wisløff.

1. Background of the case On Friday, 22 July 2011 at 15:25, a bomb exploded in the Government District in Oslo.

The explosion resulted in eight persons being killed and nine seriously injured. Nearly 500 people were in the vicinity when the bomb exploded, and were thus also in danger. Several of these sustained physical injuries and psychological suffering. The explosion also caused extensive material destruction, first and foremost of the premises of the Office of the Prime Minister and the Ministries in the Government District, but also of nearby buildings.

Later the same day, from about 17:21, a massacre started on Utøya in Hole Municipality.

At the time, 564 persons were on the island, 530 of whom were youth attending the Norwegian Labour Youth (AUF) summer camp. This afternoon, altogether 69 persons were killed. Most were killed by shooting or as a consequence thereof. Furthermore, 33 youngsters were injured, this too by shooting or as a consequence thereof. In addition to physical injuries, a large number of persons suffered psychological aftereffects.

A, born *.*.1979, was apprehended by the police on Utøya at approximately 18:34, suspected of having committed the crimes at the Government District and on Utøya.

Oslo Public Prosecutor's Office has, as ordered by the Director General of Public Prosecution, issued an indictment against A in this case. The indictment to be examined is dated 13 April 2012, and after corrections during the main hearing on 21 May and 21 June 2012 it has the following contents: The Public Prosecutors of Oslo hereby indict A , born *.*.1979, Åsta Øst, 2450 RENA, before Oslo District Court, pursuant to section 39 of the Penal Code, for sentence to be passed for his transfer to compulsory mental health care, cf. chapter 5 of the Mental Health

26.09.2012

2

Utskrift fra Lovdata

Care Act, for having in a psychotic state committed an otherwise punishable act, namely the violation of: I Section 147a of the Penal Code, first subsection paras. a) and b), cf. sections 148 first subsection first penalty alternative and 233 first and second subsections for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 148 of the Penal Code, first subsection, first penalty alternative (bringing about an explosion whereby loss of human life or extensive damage to the property of others could easily be caused) and of section 233 first and second subsections (premeditated murder where particularly aggravating circumstances prevail) with the intention of seriously disrupting a function of fundamental importance to society, such as the executive authority, or creating serious fear in a population.

Grounds: On 22 July 2011 at approximately 15:17 in Grubbegata in Oslo, following prior deliberations and planning, he parked a VW Crafter van with registration number BR 99834 outside the entrance of the H-block of the Government District, housing, inter alia, the offices of the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice. At the time, a total of at least 250 persons were in the H-block and surrounding ministry offices and some 75 persons in the streets in the immediate vicinity thereof. In the vehicle he had placed a selfmade bomb weighing approximately 950 kg, consisting, inter alia, of artificial fertilizer, diesel and aluminium. He ignited a fuse with a burn time of some seven minutes and thereafter left the scene by foot to a previously parked getaway car, a Fiat Doblò with registration number VH 24605. The bomb detonated at 15:25:22 with a violent firepower and shockwave in keeping with his intentions, bringing a large number of persons who found themselves in the buildings of the Government District or at street level into immediate mortal danger, and causing massive material damage to the same buildings, as well as to surrounding buildings.

By means of the explosion, he did kill the following eight persons, who all sustained extensive blast injuries: 1. N001, born *.*.1979 He was at the entrance of the H-block and close to the van and died immediately of massive injuries caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit him.

2. N002, born *.*.1977 She was at the entrance of the H-block and close to the van and died immediately of massive injuries caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit her.

3. N003, born *.*.1981 She was outside the entrance to the H-block and died quickly of very extensive injuries to the head and body caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit her.

4. N004, born *.*.1959 She was in the reception area on the ground floor of the H-block and died immediately of extensive injuries to the neck and spinal cord caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit her.

5. N005, born *.*.1950 She was in the reception area on the ground floor of the H-block and died immediately of extensive injuries to the chest and abdomen caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit her.

6. N006, born *.*.1984 She was in the reception area on the ground floor of the H-block and died immediately of massive injuries to the head and body caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit her.

7. N007, born *.*.1978 He was in Grubbegata next to the driveway leading to the main entrance of the H-block and died immediately of massive injuries to the head, chest and abdomen caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit him.

26.09.2012

3

Utskrift fra Lovdata

8. N008, born *.*.1954 She was in the proximity of the fountain at Einar Gerhardsen Square and died quickly of extensive injuries to the throat and chest caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit her.

By means of the explosion, he did also attempt to kill a large number of persons, including the others who found themselves in the H-block and surrounding streets. He did not succeed in his intention, but nine persons sustained serious physical injuries, as follows: 9. N009, born *.*.1949 He was in the proximity of the fountain at Einar Gerhardsen Square and sustained extensive fracture injuries and wounds to the head/face and right lower leg, chest wounds and haemorrhaging under the dura mater. Several splinters had to be removed surgically from his chest and face and his right leg had to be subsequently amputated below the knee. N009 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 19 September 2011, where he was operated on approximately 13 times. Thereafter he was moved to Sunnaas Hospital until 15 November of the same year and Fram Health Rehabilitation Centre until 10 January 2012.

10. N010, born *.*.1964 She was in the proximity of the fountain at Einar Gerhardsen Square and sustained extensive wounds to the head/face, chest, arms and legs, fractures to the skull and facial bones and injuries to both ears. The artery of her left upper arm was ruptured, causing injuries to nerves, muscles and ligaments of the same arm. Damaged tissue had to be removed from the chest. With was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 26 August 2011, where she underwent several operations, inter alia, to remove splinters.

11. N011, born *.*.1986 He was in Grubbegata at Einar Gerhardsen Square and sustained serious wounds to the arms and legs, as well as burns to one of his arms. Thoresen was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until the middle of August 2011 and underwent four operations, inter alia to remove splinters. He underwent another operation on 21 March 2012, during which a 20 x 25 mm splint was removed from the left leg.

12. N012, born *.*.1944 He was on the 4th floor of the H-block, in an office facing Grubbegata, and sustained extensive wounds and fracture injuries to the head/face, including a fractured jaw and extensive dental injuries, in addition to wounds on the arms and left flank. There was also pulmonary haemorrhaging and minor bleeding in the brain. Multiple eye injuries have resulted in substantially impaired vision in both eyes. N012 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 24 August 2011, where he was operated on several times. Thereafter he was a patient at the Cato Rehabilitation Centre until 21 September of the same year.

13. N013, born *.*.1987 She was in the reception on the ground floor of the H-block and sustained serious head injuries, involving a cranial fracture, crush injuries to cerebral tissue and bleeding under the thin meninges. Furthermore, she sustained, inter alia, a fracture of the facial skeleton, pressure injuries to both lungs, injury to the liver and a number of wounds to the head/face and on both legs. N013 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 22 August 2011, where she underwent lifesaving treatment and was operated on several times. Thereafter she was a patient at Sunnaas Hospital until 17 November of the same year and was subsequently readmitted to the same hospital from 3 January until 22 February 2012 for cognitive rehabilitation.

14. N014, born *.*.1950 She was on the 7th floor of the H-block and sustained extensive wounds to the head and face. Her injuries were treated at the Oslo Emergency Clinic and several of

26.09.2012

4

Utskrift fra Lovdata

them were closed with a total of some 60 sutures. N014 also sustained an injury to the left eye, resulting in impaired binocular vision.

15. N015, born *.*.1961 She was on the 10th floor of the H-block and was hit by an approximately 30 cm long, fingerthick wooden splint that penetrated the head next to the left ear, passing backwards between the cranium and the skin. N015 was treated at the Oslo Emergency Clinic, where the wooden splint was removed surgically and the wound closed with 27 sutures. She also sustained concussion and damage to a muscle in the jaw.

16. N016, born *.*.1980 He was on the first floor of the government building R4 in an office facing Grubbegata and sustained, inter alia, serious head injuries involving bleeding between the brain and outer meninges, serious injuries to the abdomen involving inner bleeding, as well as a fracture of the neck. N016 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 10 August, where he underwent lifesaving treatment and was operated on several times. Thereafter he was a patient at Sunnaas Hospital until 15 September 2011.

17. N017, born *.*.1956 He was at Johan Nygaardsvold Square between the H-block and Akersgata and sustained extensive fracture injuries and wounds to, inter alia, the head/face and to both legs, as well as fractures of the shoulder blade, collar bone and several ribs.

Both lungs were punctured. His right ankle was crushed and his left leg had to be subsequently amputated above the knee. N017 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 25 August 2011, where he underwent 10 operations before being transferred to Sunnaas Hospital for further treatment.

Moreover, a further 200 persons at least were physically injured as a result of the explosion, displaying varying injury patterns, such as cuts, fractures and hearing impairments, of which many were treated in hospital/emergency clinic or given other medical treatment. In addition, many of the abovestated injured persons and others who found themselves in the vicinity of the explosion, as well as surviving relatives/next of kin, have suffered mental aftereffects of varying gravity caused by the events described above.

The bomb explosion resulted in the inability of a number of government offices, including the Office of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, the Ministry of Health and Care Services, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Education and Research, to be used, and the ministries affected were unable to attend to and carry out their functions as executive powers before a certain period of time had elapsed. The explosion and the effects thereof have also given rise to serious fear in parts of the Norwegian population.

II Section 147a of the Penal Code, first subsection (b), cf. section 233 first and second subsections for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 233 of the Penal Code, first and second subsections (premeditated murder where particularly aggravating circumstances prevail) with the intention of causing serious fear in a population.

Grounds: On Friday 22 July 2011, subsequent to having acted as described in detail under count I, he did drive in the getaway car to the Municipality of Hole where he knew that the organization AUF (Norwegian Labour Youth) were holding their traditional summer camp on the island of Utøya. There were 564 persons on the island. By posing as a police officer and dressed in a uniformlike outfit, he was transported – carrying, inter alia, a Ruger brand Mini 14 semiautomatic rifle cal. 223 and a Glock brand semiautomatic 9 mm pistol – to Utøya onboard the ferry M/S Thorbjørn, where he disembarked at approximately 17:15. Up until the time of his arrest by the police on the

26.09.2012

5

Utskrift fra Lovdata

same day at approximately 18:35, he did shoot, following prior deliberation and planning, with his rifle and/or pistol, at a number of persons who were on the island, in the water or onboard boats, including civilians who came to their rescue, exposing them to immediate mortal danger. Panic and mortal fear in children, youth and adults arose during the shooting, further intensified by the fact that there were limited possibilities of escape or hiding. While moving around the whole island, he did shoot at persons running away and/or hiding and/or whom he lured to appear from hiding with information that the police had arrived.

He did kill 69 persons, of whom 67 were hit by fatal gunshots, fired by the described weapons. Two persons died as a result of fall injuries and/or drowning while attempting to get away, without having been hit by gunshots. The persons killed are as follows: 1. N018, born *.*.1960 He was between the Information Building and the pier and was shot five times with the pistol; two shots hit the occiput/neck, causing substantial brain injury. One shot hit him in the back, penetrating the right lung into the frontal part of the upper thorax. N018 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

2. N019, born *.*.1966 She was standing between the Information Building and the pier and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle; two shots travelled straight through the skull/brain. One shot hit her in the back, penetrating the thoracic wall, upper lobe of the left lung and further upward into the left part of the throat and through the skull base. N019 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

3. N020, born *.*.1967 He was standing between the Information building and the Cafe Building and was shot five times with the pistol and/or rifle. One shot entered close to the left ear, leaving on the right side of the chin to subsequently reenter through the soft tissue of the upper chest. A second shot entered the left side of the abdomen, passing, inter alia, through the stomach and right lung and leaving through the thoracic wall.

A third shot entered the right side of the chest, passing through the right lung and leaving through the right side of the back. A fourth entered the right cheek. N020 died of the gunshot injuries.

4. N021, born *.*.1967 She was outside the main entrance of the Cafe Building and was shot three times with the rifle, twice in the head and once in the back. The shots to the head entered the right cheek, one passing through the brain stem and uppermost cervical vertebra, the other passing through the head and leaving on the left side. The shot to the back caused, inter alia, injury to both lungs and crush injury to the liver. N021 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and back/chest.

5. N022, born *.*.1981 He was outside the main entrance of the Cafe Building and was shot three times â&#x20AC;&#x201C; two pistol shots in the occiput and one rifle or pistol shot in the back. The shots to the occiput passed through the head, leaving the left temple and left eye, respectively. The shot to the back caused the fracturing of the 5th and 6th ribs, extensive fracture injuries to the 4th thoracic vertebra and crush injuries to the lungs.

N022 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

6. N023, born *.*.1986 He was outside the main entrance of the Cafe Building and was shot three times â&#x20AC;&#x201C; two pistol shots in the head and one rifle shot in the back. One of the shots to the head entered in front of the left ear and into the temple, damaging the frontal part of the brain, whereas the other shot entered on the left side of the chin, via the lower jaw and skull base on the right side, through the brain, leaving in the right temple region. The shot to the back passed through the 12th rib, damaging the liver, right lung and heart. N023 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

7. N024, born *.*.1994 She was in front of the Cafe Building and was shot twice in the head with the pistol

26.09.2012

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

6

Utskrift fra Lovdata

and/or rifle. One of the shots entered through the left jaw angle, passing through the facial skeleton and leaving through the right side of the forehead. The other shot entered through the left side of the occiput, leaving through the top of the skull.

N024 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N025, born *.*.1995 He was in the vicinity of the outdoor stage next to the Cafe Building and was shot at least twice with the pistol and/or rifle, one shot to the head and one shot to the chest. The shot to the head entered through the right temple, passed through the head, leaving through the left side of the neck, causing laceration of cerebral tissue and crush injuries to the skull. The shot to the chest left through the back, causing general injury to the heart, vessels and lungs. N025 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

N026, born *.*.1996 She was in the tent camp next to the Cafe Building or inside the building itself and was shot twice with the pistol and/or rifle, through the left shoulder and back of the right knee respectively. The gunshot injury in the back caused extensive crush injuries to the lungs. N026 died of the latter injuries and external blood loss from the gunshot injuries to the shoulder and leg.

N027, born *.*.1988 He was in the tent camp southwest of the Cafe Building and was shot twice with the pistol and/or rifle. One shot entered the back, passing onward into the occiput, through the right occipital lobe of the brain and down into the right frontal lobe.

The other shot entered the right side of the occiput, passing through the occipital lobe of the brain and leaving through the right temple. The gunshot wounds in the head led to immediate loss of consciousness and N027 died the following day at Oslo University Hospital of the head injuries.

N028, born *.*.1995 She was in the doorway between the Little Hall and the Big Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head entered the left side of the occiput, passing through the brain into the skull base, causing substantial fracture injuries to the cranium and laceration of cerebral tissue. N028 died of the gunshots injuries to the head.

N029, born *.*.1993 She was in the Little Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot six times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head entered through the right temple and left through the vertex, crushing the right temporal lobe and damaging the left parietal/occipital lobe. N029 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N030, born *.*.1993 She was in the Little Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot at least three times with the pistol, once in the head and once in the chest. The shot to the head entered next to the right ear, damaging the brain. The shot to the chest entered through the right flank, passing through the right lung, diaphragm and liver and leaving through the left side of the chest. N030 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest/abdomen.

N031, born *.*.1994 She was in the Little Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot at least three times with the pistol, twice in the head and once in the back. Both shots to the head entered on the right side, causing substantial brain damage. The shot entering through the back damaged both lungs and ruptured the aorta. N031 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest/abdomen.

N032, born *.*.1993 She was in the Little Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head and one to the back. The shot to the head entered next to the right ear, passing through the brain and leaving through the left temple and causing fracture injuries to the cranium, tearing over the brain

26.09.2012

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

7

Utskrift fra Lovdata

stem and crushing the cerebellum. The shot to the back passed through the thorax and superior lobes of both lungs, leaving through the upper part of the right breast.

N032 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N033, born *.*.1994 He was in the Little Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot five times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head and one to the chest. The shot to the head entered through the left cheek, passing through the middle cranial cavity and leaving through the right side of the vertex. The shot to the chest entered through the right side of the torso, passing through the right lung and leaving through the left side of the back and causing substantial internal blood loss. N033 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

N034, born *.*.1993 He was in the Little Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot eight times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which two shots to the head/face. One of the shots to the head entered through the left side of the forehead, passing through the frontal part of the brain and leaving through the right side of the vertex. The other shot entered through the left corner of the mouth, passing through the mouth and lodging in the upper part of the cervical vertebral column. N034 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and cervical vertebral column.

N035, born *.*.1996 He was in the Big Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which two shots to the face/head. One of the shots to the head entered through the left temple, penetrating the brain and leaving through the right temple. The other shot entered through the point of the chin, penetrating the facial skeleton and brain. N035 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N036, born *.*.1992 She was in the Big Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot at least three times with the pistol, of which one shot to the face/head and one to the throat. The shot to the face/head entered through the mouth, penetrating the posterior pharynx into the cervical vertebral column. The shot to the throat entered through the right cerebral hemisphere, lodging on the inside of the skull. N036 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and throat.

N037, born *.*.1995 She was in the Big Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which two shots to the head. The shots to the head penetrated the skull and cerebellum. N037 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N038, born *.*.1984 He was in the Big Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot three times in the head with the pistol and/or rifle. One shot entered the right temple, passing through the skull bone and brain, another entered at the right nose wing, passing through the facial skeleton and down into the upper lobe of the left lung, while a third entered the left cheek, leaving through the neck. N038 died of the gunshot injuries.

N039, born *.*.1993 She was in the Big Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot at least twice with the pistol and/or rifle, of which two shots to the head/face. One of the shots entered the right side of the forehead, penetrating the brain. The other entered the right cheek, lodging in the 5th vertebra of the cervical vertebral column. N039 died of the gunshot injuries to the head/face.

N040, born *.*.1994 He was in the corridor further in from the Little Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot six times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head entering through the left nose wing. The projectile fragmented and parts of it left through the right ear, causing haemorrhaging from the underside of the brain. N040 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N041, born *.*.1994

26.09.2012

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

8

Utskrift fra Lovdata

She was on Lovers' Path (KjĂŚrlighetsstien) and was shot twice with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the throat, which continued into the head through the skull base and brain. N041 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

25. N042, born *.*.1990 He was on Lovers' Path and was shot once in the head with the pistol or rifle. The shot entered the right side of the vertex into the left side of the forehead through the medulla oblongata of the brain. N042 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N043, born *.*.1993 He was on Lovers' Path and was shot five times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which two shots to the face/head, one to the throat, one to the back and one to the left thigh. The shots to the face/head entered the left cheek, crushing the facial skeleton and leaving the right cheek/right side of the throat. The shot to the throat damaged the left external jugular vein, the shot to the back penetrated the left lung, damaging the heart and passing through to the abdomen, while the shot to the left thigh penetrated the musculature, leaving through the right gluteus. N043 died of the gunshot injuries.

N044, born *.*.1994 She was on Lovers' Path and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head. The shot to the head entered through the vertex, penetrating, inter alia, the skull, the left parietal lobe and right frontal lobe. N044 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N045, born *.*.1993 She was on Lovers' Path and was shot at least twice with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the face/head. The shot entered the right side of the chin, leaving through the neck and causing the shattering of the two uppermost cervical vertebrae and crush bleeding of the medulla oblongata. N045 died of the gunshot injuries to the head/throat/neck.

N046, born *.*.1994 She was on Lovers' Path and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the occiput, damaging the posterior part of the cerebrum and cerebellum and causing fracture lines on both sides of the temporal bone. N046 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N047, born *.*.1993 He was on Lovers' Path and was shot twice with the pistol, of which one shot to the occiput leading to crush injuries of the medulla oblongata and the right cerebellar hemisphere. N047 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N048, born *.*.1992 She was on Lovers' Path and was shot twice in the head with the pistol and/or rifle.

One of the shots entered through the right side of the occiput, penetrating the brain.

The other shot entered through the vertex, passing, inter alia, through the brain the skull base, throat and down into the left thoracic cavity. N049 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N049, born *.*.1992 He was on Lovers' Path and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head and two to the neck. The shot to the head entered the left side, through the left cerebral hemisphere, leaving through the neck. One of the shots to the neck passed through the upper edge of the right cerebral hemisphere and into the frontal cranial cavity. N049 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N050, born *.*.1993 She was on Lovers' Path and was shot twice with the pistol and/or rifle through the head. One of the shots entered through the left cheek, leaving through the right side.

The other shot entered the left part of the vertex, passing, inter alia, through the brain and skull base. N050 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N051, born *.*.1994 He was at the water's edge between the escarpment below Lovers' Path and Naked

26.09.2012

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

9

Utskrift fra Lovdata

Point (Nakenodden) and was shot four times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which two shots to the right flank below the armpit. One of the shots entered the thorax, penetrating the oesophagus and trachea and leaving above the left collar bone. The other shot penetrated both lungs and aorta, leaving through the left flank. N051 died of the gunshot injuries to the chest as a result of haemorrhaging.

N052, born *.*.1992 He was in the area close to the escarpment below Lovers' Path and was shot twice with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot went through the back penetrating the trachea and oesophagus and leaving through the sternum, rupturing the right carotid artery. N052 died of the gunshot injuries to the chest.

N053, born *.*.1995 She was on the uppermost part of the escarpment below Lovers' Path and was shot four times with the pistol and/or rifle, in the neck, back and flanks respectively. The shot to the neck perforated the vertebral column, damaging the medulla spinalis as well as the oesophagus, trachea and right carotid artery. The shot to the back penetrated the thoracic wall, left lower pulmonary lobe, diaphragm and abdominal cavity. Both shots to the right and left flanks penetrated the vertebral column, damaging the medulla spinalis and tearing over the renal arteries. N053 died of the gunshot injuries.

N054, born *.*.1997 She was in the area by the escarpment below Lovers' Path and was shot twice with the pistol and/or rifle. One of the shots penetrated, inter alia, the left lung, the main stem of the pulmonary artery and the aorta. The other shot crushed the 11th chest vertebra and liver, leaving through the right flank. N054 died of the gunshot injuries to the chest causing internal and external blood loss.

N055, born *.*.1995 She was in the area by escarpment below Lovers' Path and was shot at least once with the pistol or rifle. The shot entered through the right groin, rupturing the pelvic artery on the right side and leaving through the right flank. N055 died of blood loss from the gunshot injuries to the abdomen.

N056, born *.*.1994 She was in the forest east of the Schoolhouse and was shot twice with the pistol and/or rifle, in the head and left iliac crest. The shot to the head entered through the left eye, shattering the skull and left cerebral hemisphere. N056 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N057, born *.*.1996 He was in the forest east of the Schoolhouse and was shot three times with the pistol, twice in the head and once in the throat. The shots to the head entered through the left side of the forehead, causing substantial brain damage. The shot to the throat entered through the left side, penetrating the left lung and leaving through the back. N057 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

N058, born *.*.1992 He was at the water's edge at Stoltenberg Rock (Stoltenberget) and was shot once in the occiput with the pistol or rifle. The shot penetrated the skull and brain, causing, inter alia, a crushing of the brain. N058 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N059, born *.*.1993 He was at Stoltenberg Rock and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, twice in the head and once in the back. The shots to the head entered below the left eye and left temple, causing substantial damage to the skull and brain. The shot in the back damaged the left lung and heart, causing massive haemorrhaging in the thoracic cavity. N059 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

N060, born *.*.1993 She was at Stoltenberg Rock and was shot three times in the head with the pistol and/or rifle. One shot to the right side of the occiput penetrated the brain, lodging in the upper part of the spinal canal. Another entered from behind into the left

26.09.2012

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

10

Utskrift fra Lovdata

temple, through the brain, leaving through the right eye. A third shot entered the right side of the occiput, penetrating the brain. N060 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N061, born *.*.1993 He was in Bolshevik Cove (Bolsjevika) and was shot once in the head with the pistol or rifle. The shot entered through the posterior part of the vertex into the lower part of the occiput, damaging the posterior parts of the brain, including the pons Varolii. N061 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N062, born *.*.1992 She was in Bolsjevik Cove and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head and one shot to the back. The shot to the head entered through the right side of the chin, shattering the uppermost cervical vertebrae and skull base and thereafter penetrating the brain. The shot to the back damaged the spleen, left kidney, pancreas, stomach, liver and left lung. N062 died of the gunshot injuries to the throat/head and abdomen/chest.

N063, born *.*.1994 She was in Bolsjevik Cove and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head. The shot entered through the left temple, passing straight through the brain and exiting behind the right ear, shattering the posterior parts of the brain and skull. N063 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N064, born *.*.1992 He was in Bolsjevik Cove and was shot four times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which two shots to the back. The shots to the back damaged the spine, ribs, right lung, aorta and oesophagus. N064 died of the gunshot injuries to the chest.

N065, born *.*.1993 She was in Bolsjevik Cove and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, twice in the head and once in the back. One of the shots to the head entered below the chin, travelling through the facial skeleton, skull base and brain. The other entered through the left eye, travelling through the skull base and brain. The shot to the back damaged internal organs in the upper left part of the abdominal cavity, left diaphragm cupola, apex of the heart and left lung. N065 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

N066, born *.*.1992 She was in the area of the Pumphouse and was shot once in the head with the pistol or rifle. The shot entered the lower part of the left cheek, exiting through the left side of the head, damaging large portions of the brain and skull roof. N066 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N067, born *.*.1995 She was in the area of the Pumphouse and was shot once in the abdomen with the pistol or rifle. The shot entered the right upper part of the abdomen, damaging the liver, duodenum and inferior vena cava. N067 died of blood loss, caused by the gunshot injuries to the abdomen.

N068, born *.*.1993 He was in the area of the Pumphouse and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head and one to the back. The shot to the head entered through the left eye into the brain, causing fracture injuries to the cranium and substantial crush injuries to the underside of the left frontal lobe. The shot to the back entered the rear of the right thoracic cavity into the upper lobe of the right lung. N068 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and back/chest.

N069, born *.*.1994 He was in the area of the Pumphouse and was shot at least three times with the pistol and/or rifle. The shots hit him in the left shoulder, lower back and left flank.

The shot to the left shoulder penetrated the shoulder blade and upper part of the thorax, damaging, inter alia, the left carotid artery and lung apex. The shot to the lower back caused the fracturing of the 11th and 12th ribs, as well as damage to the

26.09.2012

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

11

Utskrift fra Lovdata

spinal column, leaving substantial amounts of metal fragments in the abdomen. The shot to the left flank damaged, inter alia, the left kidney, spleen and left liver lobe.

N069 died of the gunshot injuries to the chest and abdomen.

N070, born *.*.1990 She was by the Pumphouse and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head. The shot to the head entered the right side of the occiput, exiting through the left temple and causing substantial brain damage. N070 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N071, born *.*.1995 He was by the Pumphouse and was shot twice with the pistol and/or rifle, in the occiput and back respectively. The shot to the occiput caused damage to the skull bone and right cerebral hemisphere, while the shot to the back shattered the cervical vertebral column. N071 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and throat.

N072, born *.*.1991 He was by the Pumphouse and was shot once in the head with the pistol or rifle.

The shot caused damage to large portions of the left side of the skull and brain.

N072 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N073, born *.*.1992 He was by the Pumphouse and was shot once in the head with the pistol or rifle.

The shot entered through the corner of the left eye, damaging the upper part of the cranium and causing massive brain damage. N073 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N074, born *.*.1991 She was by the Pumphouse and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head and one to the chest. The shot to the head entered the right side of the occiput and left through the left temple, causing substantial damage to the brain. The shot to the chest grazed first the right side of the head, and the projectile fragmented so that a fragment entered the chest, into the left thoracic cavity, damaging the left lung. N074 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

N075, born *.*.1995 He was by the Pumphouse and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which two shots two the head. The shots to the head entered on the left side and right temple, respectively, causing extensive fracture injuries to the skull and fragmentation of the brain. N075 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N076, born *.*.1989 He was by the Pumphouse and was shot four times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot with the rifle to the back and one shot with the pistol to the neck.

The shot to the back damaged the left lung and caused haemorrhaging in the left thoracic cavity. The shot to the neck ruptured the spinal column at the level of the 3rd cervical vertebra. N076 died of the gunshot injuries to the neck and chest.

N077, born *.*.1993 She was by the Pumphouse and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the throat and one to the back. The shot to the throat penetrated the left lower jaw, entering the cranial cavity and causing fracturing of the skull base and damage to the left frontal lobe of the brain. The shot to the back shattered the 4th to the 7th ribs, tearing up the right lung and thoracic cavity. N077 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

N078, born *.*.1983 He was in the area of the Pumphouse and was shot twice in the head with the pistol and/or rifle. One of the shots entered through the left cheek, crushing the brain stem and cerebellum and damaging the cervical vertebral column. The other entered behind the right ear and exited through the right cheek. N078 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N079, born *.*.1992

26.09.2012

12

Utskrift fra Lovdata

He was in the area of the Pumphouse, at the water's edge or in the water, and was shot once in the head with the pistol or rifle. The shot entered through the left temple and exited through the left side of the occiput, causing extensive damage to the skull and underlying parts of the brain. N079 died of drowning, but the gunshot injuries to the head led to immediate loss of consciousness and contributed to his death.

63. N080, born *.*.1988 She was at the water's edge at South Point (Sydspissen) and was shot twice in the back with the pistol and/or rifle. One of the shots entered through the left side of the back, penetrating the vertebral column into the right side of the throat. The other shot entered through the right side of the back, penetrating the thoracic wall and right lung. N080 died of the gunshot injuries to the back.

64. N081, born *.*.1996 He was at the water's edge at South Point and was shot at least three times with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot to the head and one through the throat. The shot to the head entered through the right side, shattering the skull and brain. N081 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and throat.

65. N082, born *.*.1995 She was at the water's edge at South Point and was shot once in the head with the pistol or rifle. The shot entered through the right ear, penetrated the frontal part of the brain and exited through the left temple, causing damage to the cranium and crushing of the frontal part of the brain. N082 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

66. N083, born *.*.1991 She was at the water's edge at South Point and was shot at least once with the pistol or rifle. One shot entered through the shoulder, passing via the throat into the skull, causing damage to blood vessels and throat/pharynx and haemorrhaging of the underside of the brain. N083 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and throat.

67. N084, born *.*.1994 She was at the water's edge at South Point and was shot three times with the pistol, of which one shot to the head and one to the chest. The shot to the head penetrated the neck, travelled through the cerebellum and brain stem, causing fracturing of the skull and substantial crush injuries to the brain. The shot to the chest passed through the right lung, the spinal column and penetrated the rear thoracic wall, causing substantial haemorrhaging in the thoracic cavity. N084 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

68. N085, born *.*.1994 He fled from the island by starting to swim, but died of drowning and was found outside South Point at a depth of 6 metres.

69. N086, born *.*.1994 He fled and fell off a cliff near the island's west point and into the water, sustaining a fracture of the skull and pelvis, tearing of the right lung and spleen and massive haemorrhaging in the right thoracic cavity. N086 died of fall injuries and/or drowning.

In addition to the abovestated murders, he did attempt to kill a number of other persons, albeit without succeeding in his intentions. In the course of the attempted murders, he did shoot and injure 33 persons as follows: 70. N087, born *.*.1991 She was in the tent camp and was shot with the pistol or rifle while escaping. N087 was hit in the right forearm and several projectile fragments were removed at an outpatients clinic.

71. N088, born *.*.1991 He was in the tent camp and was shot with the pistol or rifle while escaping. He was hit once in the back near the right shoulder blade. The shot led to fracture injuries of the shoulder blade and 3rd and 4th ribs, numerous projectile fragments in

26.09.2012

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

13

Utskrift fra Lovdata

the body and damage to the right lung. N088 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 1 August 2011.

N089, born *.*.1992 She was in the tent camp and was shot with the pistol or rifle while escaping. N089 was hit by a projectile fragment in the right thigh, but no serious injury was caused.

N090, born *.*.1994 She was in the tent camp and was shot with the pistol or rifle while escaping. She was hit by several projectile fragments in the left lower leg. N090 was admitted to Asker and Bærum Hospital for approximately one day from the evening of 22 July, where she underwent surgery, involving wound toilet and removal of several fragments.

N091, born *.*.1996 She was in the tent camp and was shot with the pistol or rifle while escaping. She was hit in the right shoulder and upper arm. She was also shot in the right side of the stomach, either simultaneously or somewhat later. The shot to the shoulder caused fracturing of the shoulder blade and damage to the right lung. The shot to the stomach entered the subcutis and fatty tissue. N091 underwent hospital treatment for approximately 12 days from 22 July in, inter alia, Oslo University Hospital, where she underwent surgery involving extensive wound toilet.

N092, born *.*.1995 She was in the tent camp and was shot with the pistol or rifle while escaping and hit in the right forearm. The shot went through the arm. N092 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July, where she underwent surgery involving wound cleansing and lavage.

N093, born *.*.1994 She was in the tent camp and was shot with the pistol or rifle while escaping. She was hit in the left lower leg, but no serious injury was caused.

N094, born *.*.1989 She was in the Little Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot at least four times with the pistol and/or rifle, including in the face, both forearms and left breast. The shot to the face caused extensive injury to the left half of the face, including a fracture of the lower jaw. The shots to the forearms caused soft tissue lesions, a fracturing of knucklebones in the right midhand and impaired mobility of several fingers. The shot to the left breast caused muscular and fatty tissue injuries. She was admitted, via Asker and Bærum Hospital, to Oslo University Hospital, where she underwent surgical treatment of the lower jaw fracture and wounds. N094 was discharged on 19 August 2011.

N095, born *.*.1994 She was in the Little Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot twice with the pistol and/or rifle in the left knee and left shoulder. The shot to the knee entered on the inside, passed through the fat/musculature of the thigh and lodged under the skin on the outside of the thigh. The shot to the shoulder did not cause serious injuries. She was admitted to Asker and Bærum Hospital on 22 July, where she underwent surgical treatment for her leg injury and for removal of the projectile. On the following day, N095 was transferred to Telemark Hospital for further treatment and she was discharged on 30 July 2011.

N096, born *.*.1993 He was in the Little Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot at least once with the pistol or rifle, of which once in the left foot. The shot entered on the outside, causing a fracture of the bone in the midfoot and lodging in the heel bone. He was admitted to Asker and Bærum Hospital on 22 July where he underwent surgical treatment, involving wound toilet and removal of a projectile. On the following day, N096 was transferred to Østfold Hospital for further treatment and he was discharged on 2 August 2011.

N097, born *.*.1991

26.09.2012

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

14

Utskrift fra Lovdata

He was in the Little Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot once in the face with the pistol. The shot entered the left side of the face, passing through the palate and leaving under the right eye, causing, inter alia, crush injuries to the eye socket and injury to the optic nerve. N097 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July, where he underwent several operations before being discharged on 1 August 2011.

N098, born *.*.1990 She was in the doorway between the Little Hall and the corridor of the Cafe Building and was shot once in the right knee with the pistol or rifle. The shot entered on the outside of the knee, passed through the femur, causing a fracture thereof. N098 was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July where the femoral fracture was stabilized and she was transferred the following day to Ă&#x2DC;stfold Hospital, where she underwent surgery to remove the projectile, wound toilet and treatment of the femoral fracture. She was discharged therefrom on 31 July 2011.

N099, born *.*.1992 He was first in the Big Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot several times with the pistol and/or rifle and was hit in both thighs and right ankle. Thereafter he fled out of the building and ended up at the island's South Point where he was subsequently shot while hiding behind a rock in the water. The shots gave rise to wounds and N099 was hospitalized in Ringerike Hospital from 22 to 25 July 2011, where soft tissue and a projectile fragment were removed from the right thigh and the gunshot wounds cleansed and sutured.

N100, born *.*.1992 She was in the Big Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot several times with the pistol and/or rifle in the throat, left upper arm and left little finger. The shot to the throat caused the fracturing of the 3rd and 4th cervical vertebrae and damage to the spinal cord, as well as extensive tissue damage. The shot to the upper arm caused extensive fracture injuries. She was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July, where she was operated on several times for fixation of the cervical fracture, frame fixation of the left upper arm and partial amputation of the left little finger, in addition to wound toilet. N100 was transferred to St. Olav's Hospital on 15 August where she was hospitalized until 30 November 2011.

N101, born *.*.1994 She was on Lovers' Path and was shot once in the left side of the head with the pistol or rifle. The shot caused scalp lesions and a cerebral haemorrhage. N101 was hospitalized in Ringerike Hospital, Oslo University Hospital and Vestfold Hospital from 22 to 25 July 2011.

N102, born *.*.1993 She was on a ledge of the escarpment below Lovers' Path and was shot once in the back with the pistol or rifle. The shot entered through the left part of the lower back, damaging, inter alia, the left kidney and the pancreas tail, colon and spleen.

She was initially admitted and operated on in Drammen Hospital, where the left kidney was removed and the colon repaired, and she was thereafter transferred to Oslo University Hospital on 24 July for new operations. In addition to the abovedescribed abdominal injuries, she sustained extensive injuries to the nerve roots of the lumbar back, involving paralysis of musculature, especially in the left thigh. Following discharge on 18 August, N102 was transferred to Sunnaas Hospital for further treatment.

N103, born *.*.1993 He was at the water's edge below Lovers' Path and was shot at least four times with the pistol and/or rifle. He was hit in the head, left shoulder region, left hand and right forearm. The shot to the head entered the right side and caused extensive injuries, involving an open cranial fracture and damaged brain tissue, in addition to damage to the right eye and adjacent bone structure. He has lost vision in his right eye. The shot to the shoulder region shattered the shoulder joint and damaged the

26.09.2012

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

15

Utskrift fra Lovdata

nerves leading into the left arm. The shot to the left hand caused extensive injuries and resulted in the amputation of three fingers. N103 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July, where he underwent intensive treatment and was operated on numerous times before being transferred to Sunnaas Hospital on 15 August 2011 for further treatment.

N104, born *.*.1992 She was between the water's edge and Lovers' Path and was shot several times with the pistol and/or rifle. She was hit in the stomach, right elbow/upper arm, right knee region and right part of the thoracic wall. The shot to the stomach damaged, inter alia, the colon, small intestine and abdominal wall. The shot to the elbow/upper arm caused extensive soft tissue damage and the shot to the knee damaged tissue, ligaments and joint capsule. She was initially admitted to and underwent emergency surgery at Ringerike Hospital, where, inter alia, a portion of the colon was removed, and was thereafter transferred to Oslo University Hospital on 23 July, where she underwent several operations, inter alia, to remove the right part of the colon and a portion of the small intestine. Upon discharge on 22 August, N104 was transferred to the University Hospital of North Norway, where she was hospitalized until 29 August 2011.

N105, born *.*.1993 He was in the water below Lovers' Path and was shot with the pistol and/or rifle and hit in the right flank. A smaller projectile fragment entered the upper right part of the stomach, without causing any serious injuries.

N106, born *.*.1994 She was in the escarpment below Lovers' Path and was shot at least twice with the pistol and/or rifle, of which one shot entered under the right shoulder blade and/or stomach and one shot entered the inside of the right upper arm. She sustained gunshot injuries to the right lung, fracturing of two ribs and a number of projectile fragments in the thoracic wall and flank on the right side. N106 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July, where she underwent surgery and was discharged on 10 August 2011.

N107, born *.*.1996 She was in the escarpment below Lovers' Path and was shot several times with the pistol and/or rifle. She was hit in the left flank/stomach, throat region and both thighs. The shot to the left flank/stomach led to massive bleeding, and parts of the small intestine and colon had to be removed. The shot to the throat necessitated the removal of parts of the musculature between the shoulder and back and skin transplants. The gunshot injuries to the thighs necessitated the removal of muscle mass, especially from the left thigh. She was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July to 16 August and was operated on a total of six times.

Thereafter N107 was transferred to the University Hospital of North Norway from 26 August to 13 September for further treatment.

N108, born *.*.1994 She was on a ledge below Lovers' Path and was shot at least twice in the right arm with the pistol and/or rifle. The gunshots caused a relatively large open wound on the forearm and two wounds on the upper arm. N108 was hospitalized in Ringerike Hospital from 22 to 24 July 2011, where she underwent surgical treatment, involving, inter alia, wound toilet and the removal of projectile fragments.

N109, born *.*.1992 He was on a ledge below Lovers' Path and was shot once below the left knee cap with the pistol or rifle, whereupon he fell down the escarpment, resulting in a fracture of the left eye socket. The gunshot gave rise to an open fracture of the tibia, extensive soft tissue damage and permanent nerve damage in the lower leg. He was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July where he underwent surgery, inter alia, to mount an external fixation to stabilize the tibia fracture. On the following day, N109 was transferred to the University Hospital of North Norway, where he

26.09.2012

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

16

Utskrift fra Lovdata

underwent surgery to treat the eye socket injury, fracture injuries in the leg and wound toilet.

N110, born *.*.1995 She was at the Pumphouse and was shot once in the right part of the chest with the pistol or rifle. The shot entered into the right thoracic cavity and penetrated the lung. She was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July where an accumulation of air and blood in the thoracic cavity was ascertained, and she was thereafter transferred to Oslo University Hospital, where she underwent several surgical procedures to treat the wounds in the chest, as well as to remove foreign bodies from the face. N110 was discharged on 4 August 2011.

N111, born *.*.1991 He was at the Pumphouse and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle. He was hit in the right and left thighs and left part of the scrotum. The gunshots caused three major wounds, involving extensive tissue damage. He was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July and transferred to Stavanger University Hospital on the following day. N111 was operated on several times, inter alia, to remove projectile fragments, for wound toilet and skin transplants, prior to discharge on 17 August 2011.

N112, born *.*.1990 He was at the Pumphouse and was shot several times with the pistol and/or rifle. He was hit in the abdomen, left shoulder and left thigh. The stomach, liver, left lung and heart were damaged. The gunshots to the shoulder and thigh necessitated the subsequent amputation of the arm and leg. He was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July, where he underwent emergency lifesaving treatment and was then transferred to Oslo University Hospital the same night, where he underwent a series of operations before being transferred to Sunnaas Hospital on 11 October 2011 for further treatment.

N113, born *.*.1995 He was in the vicinity of West Point (Vestspissen) and was hit by a number of projectile fragments from shots fired by the pistol or rifle which struck rocks in the immediate vicinity of his hiding place. A large number of fragments hit him, inter alia, in the left lower part of the face. N113 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 to 27 July 2011, where he underwent surgical removal of some 150 minor fragments from the face.

N114, born *.*.1996 He was in the vicinity of West Point and was shot once in the left flank with the pistol or rifle. The gunshot caused lesions and projectile fragments in the pelvic area. N114 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July and underwent several wound cleansing procedures under general anaesthesia.

N115, born *.*.1989 He was at South Point and was shot once in the left shoulder with the pistol or rifle.

He was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July and underwent surgery to remove, inter alia, damaged tissue and metal fragments before being transferred to Telemark Hospital on 24 July, where he underwent several operations. N115 was discharged at the beginning of August 2011.

N116, born *.*.1994 She was at South Point and was shot three times with the pistol and/or rifle. She was hit in the right forearm, right shoulder and right part of the face. The shot to the face entered the jaw bone, fracturing the angle of the lower jaw. The shot to the forearm gave rise to, inter alia, an open crush fracture of both bone shafts and extensive soft tissue damage, and the arm had to be amputated at the elbow. The shot to the shoulder gave rise to extensive soft tissue damage and crush fracturing of the joint capsule of the humerus. N116 was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July and thereafter transferred to Oslo University Hospital, where she was hospitalized until 19 August 2011.

26.09.2012

17

Utskrift fra Lovdata

100. N117, born *.*.1993 She was at South Point and was shot twice with the pistol and/or rifle, including one shot to the left side of the face. The shot to the face entered through the left cheek, causing several fractures of the head/facial skeleton and projectile fragments penetrated into the brain. N117 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July, where she underwent two operations before being transferred to Sunnaas Hospital on 19 August for further treatment.

101. N118, born *.*.1993 She was at South Point and was shot, inter alia, in the right thigh with the pistol or rifle. The gunshot caused a wound and the accumulation of projectile fragments in the thigh. She was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July and underwent surgery, involving wound treatment and wound toilet. On the following day, N118 was transferred to Østfold Hospital, where she underwent two further operations in the thigh, involving wound toilet, removal of projectile fragments and skin transplant.

102. N119, born *.*.1993 She was at South Point and was shot once in the left flank by the pistol or rifle. The projectile entered the abdomen, causing extensive damage to internal organs, including the stomach, colon and one kidney. The kidney and parts of the colon had to be removed. N119 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July to 12 August 2011, where she was operated on several times.

A number of other persons who were on Utøya sustained physical injuries, such as fractures, cuts, etc. in their attempts to save themselves and others. In addition, a large number of persons who were on the island, surviving relatives/next of kin, as well as persons who came to rescue in boats and by other means have suffered mental aftereffects of varying gravity as a result of the abovedescribed events.

The acts committed at Utøya have given rise to serious fear in parts of the Norwegian population.

The defendant has committed extremely serious offences on a scale that has never previously been experienced in our country in modern times. In the defendant's own opinion, these acts have been legitimate and lawful, and there is undoubtedly an imminent and obvious risk that new serious offences of the same nature may occur.

Considerations of public safety require a sentence ordering his transfer to compulsory mental health care, and the conditions set out in section 39 no. 1 have been met.

Submission will be made for the confiscation of three weapons (a Ruger brand semiautomatic Mini 14 rifle cal. 233, a Glock brand 9 mm semiautomatic pistol and a Benelli brand pump shotgun) with the appurtenant ammunition. Furthermore, submission will be made for the confiscation of objects used to manufacture the bomb mentioned under count I of the Indictment, as well as any clothing/equipment, etc. used during the commission of the acts described under counts I and II. Any claims for damages/compensation for nonpecuniary damage by surviving relatives and aggrieved parties will be filed by their respective counsel, cf. section 428 and section 264 b second subsection of the Criminal Procedure Act. In light of the disclosure of the case at the time of the indictment, there are no grounds for a submission of regular punishment, cf. section 44 first subsection of the Penal Code. Nevertheless, the prosecuting authority expressly reserves the right to make a submission during the main hearing for a sentence of imprisonment or preventive detention with a time frame of 21 years, based on the overall presentation of evidence in court, for which the defendant and defence counsel must be prepared. In such event, section 62 of the Penal Code shall apply.

No civil claims were presented in connection with the criminal proceedings, nor did the Prosecuting Authority submit a petition for any confiscations.

The main hearing was held in the period from 16 April to 22 June 2012 over 43 days in court. The defendant appeared and acknowledged having committed the acts of which he is accused. However, he pleaded not guilty to the charges.

26.09.2012

18

Utskrift fra Lovdata

The Court heard 114 witnesses, of whom 21 were privately appointed expert witnesses and 6 were courtappointed expert witnesses. The evidence was presented as may be read in the court records.

The prosecutor submitted the following plea: For A, born *.*.1979, to be committed to compulsory mental health care pursuant to the Penal Code, section 39, for having committed the acts described in the indictment issued by Oslo Public Prosecutor's Office dated 13 April 2012.

In the alternative: For A, born *.*.1979, to be convicted for the violation of the Penal Code section 147a first subsection paras. a) and b), cf. section 148 first subsection, first penalty alternative and section 233 first and second subsections, and the Penal Code section 233 first and second subsections, and the Penal Code Section 233 first and second subsections cf. the Penal Code section 49, and the Penal Code section 147a first subsection letter b, cf. section 233 first and second subsections, and the Penal Code section 233, first and second subsections, cf. the Penal Code section 49, all seen in conjunction with the Penal Code section 62, to preventive detention for a term of 21 years and a minimum period of 10 years.

From the said term and the said minimum period, a deduction of 381 days (as of 21 June 2012) shall be made for time spent in custody.

The defence counsel presented the following plea: Primarily: For the petition of the Prosecuting Authority of A 's transferral to compulsory mental health care to be dismissed.

In the alternative: For A to be acquitted.

For A to be treated as leniently as possible.

The defendant has, from the moment of his arrest, in all police interviews and in all court hearings and at the trial, acknowledged the very acts of which he is indicted. His statements during the investigations on the planning and execution of the bomb explosion at the Government District and on the shooting on Utøya have been confirmed by police investigations. The defendant has maintained his police statements in court. Hence, there is no doubt that the defendant has committed the acts of which he is indicted.

Although the Court will discuss the objective and subjective conditions for punishability further on in the judgment, in relation to the relevant penal provisions, the deaths will henceforth be referred to as murders, the personal injuries as attempted murders and the explosion at the Government District and the shooting on Utøya as terrorist acts.

2. On the defendant and his activities in the time before the preparations for the terrorist acts 2.1 The defendant's family background, childhood and school years The defendant was born on *.*.1979. The parents were married at the time, and lived in ––– gate in Oslo. The mother had the daughter B, who is 6 years older than the defendant, from a previous relationship. The father had 3 children from a previous marriage, and worked at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When the defendant was 6 months old, the family (the mother, the father, the defendant and his half sister) moved to London, where the father worked as an embassy counsellor.

The parents split up when the defendant was a year and a half old. The mother then moved back to the apartment in ––– gate with the defendant and his half sister.

In 1981, the defendant's mother contacted the social welfare office, applying for respite care in the form of weekend home stays for the defendant. The application was accepted, but after some time the arrangement was discontinued. In December 1982, the defendant moved with his mother and sister to X in Oslo. The defendant later entered nursery school at the Y, where he stayed until he started primary school.

26.09.2012

19

Utskrift fra Lovdata

The defendant's mother contacted the family counselling office in early 1983, and was referred to the National Centre of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (SSBU). The family stayed at the family day unit of the Juvenile Psychiatric Clinic from 1 to 25 February 1983.

The defendant was 4 years old at the time. The stay first resulted in a letter from SSBU to the Child Welfare Services suggesting a weekend foster home.

Based on information on the care situation of the defendant, his father filed a suit in the spring of 1983, claiming that the responsibility for daily care of the defendant should be transferred to him. The case was later settled, and the defendant continued to live with his mother. The defendant had holiday stays with his father until the age of 15, after which the contact was broken.

In October of 1983, SSBU sent another letter to the Child Welfare Services, stating, inter alia, that «A's care situation is so deficient that he is at risk of developing more serious psychopathology». The letter was treated as a note of concern, and investigations were instigated. The Child Welfare Services did not find foster home placement appropriate, but recommended home inspections for a short period. Oslo Child Welfare Committee closed the case without implementing any form of assistance in the summer of 1984.

In the time period from 1986 to 1995, the defendant attended Z Primary School and Æ Lower Secondary School.

The defendant and his mother moved to –––veien in Oslo in 1994. By then, the sister had moved out to live on her own.

The same year – in December 1994 – a new child welfare case was opened. The grounds were a note from the Child Welfare Emergency Service Team after the defendant was stopped by the police at Oslo Central Station, when he arrived by train from Denmark with 43 spray paint cans in his bag. In February/March 1994, the defendant was reported to the police twice for graffiti. The Child Welfare Services closed the case without taking any measures on 15 March 1995.

In the fall of 1995, the defendant entered Ø Upper Secondary School, where he was a student for 1 year before switching to the upper secondary school Å. He left school out of his own will during the third and final year in the fall of 1997 without graduating with a diploma. According to the defendant's statement, he left school because he wanted to earn money and establish himself as an entrepreneur.

The defendant left his mother's home in 2000. First, he rented a room in ––– gate in Oslo and in 2001 he moved into a shared apartment in ––– gate. In September 2003, he moved to an apartment at ––– gate, where he lived alone until the fall of 2006, when he moved back in with his mother at –––veien. In April 2011, the defendant rented a small farm in Åmot Municipality in Østerdalen, and he moved there in May 2011. The Court will revert to the time from 2006 onwards under the discussion of the question of criminal sanity.

The defendant has not done compulsory military service or civilian national service.

2.2 The defendant's work experience and business activities In the summer of 1997, the defendant was employed in the company Direkte Respons Senteret. First, he worked part time and later full time with the company. His duties were related to telemarketing and customer service. According to the defendant, he was promoted to team leader after some time. In 2001, the company was acquired and the name changed to SNT Norway. He continued to work in the company until April 2003.

During the period while the defendant was employed in Direkte Respons Senteret, he founded and ran several types of business through various companies.

In the summer of 1998, the defendant and a friend founded the company A og C Marketing AS. The company sold telecom services, but the business generated little income and was dissolved after a short period.

Media Group AS was founded in the summer of 1999. The company did development and sales of outdoor marketing spots in Oslo. In June 2001, the defendant sold the shares in the company without making a profit.

In July 2001, the defendant founded the sole proprietorship Citygroup. He had a go at various types of business, including sales of software solutions and advertising business. The

26.09.2012

20

Utskrift fra Lovdata

company was dissolved in December 2004.

The defendant was in Liberia in 2002, probably in order to check out the possibility of purchasing diamonds. The police have confiscated receipts dated prior to the trip to Liberia from the purchase of two raw diamonds and a magnifying lens, and they have disclosed telephone calls to various diamond vendors in Norway, England and the USA both before and after the trip. The defendant himself has explained that he was in Liberia to meet a Serbian nationalist.

In December 2002, the defendant set up the website Diplomaservice.com. Through this website, he sold false diplomas apparently issued by various institutions of higher education.

In January 2005, he founded the company E–Commerce Group AS. From within this enterprise, he continued with the sale of diplomas. He employed 2 persons fulltime in Norway and rented offices in Pilestredet in Oslo. After some time, the sales of the false diplomas generated considerable income, for which tax was mostly not paid.

To enable money laundering of the income from the sales of false diplomas, the defendant founded the company Brentwood Solutions LTD in a tax haven in the Caribbean.

The income was deposited in an account in the name of Brentwood Solutions LTD in a foreign bank, and later transferred to E–Commerce Group AS as payment for services.

Police investigations have shown payments of altogether NOK 3 687 588 for sales of false documents in the period from 2002 to 2006. The defendant discontinued the operations of E–Commerce Group AS in the first half of 2006. By then he had a not insignificant share portfolio, in addition to savings from the sales of diplomas. The company then went into compulsory liquidation in January 2008.

After the defendant discontinued the sales of false diplomas in the winter of 2006, he has not had any income from any employments or from his own enterprise. Nor has he received any financial support from the public authorities.

In addition to the abovementioned activities, the defendant has been trading in shares from 1997, except in the period 1998 to 2002. In the years 2005 and 2006, he made slightly less than 350 transactions in his own name or in the name of E–Commerce Group AS. In the years 2007 to 2009, the defendant sold shares for a bit more than 1.1 million NOK, spread over 60 transactions.

2.3 The period from 2006 – World of Warcraft In the autumn of 2006, the defendant, as already mentioned, moved back in with his mother in –––veien. In the following year, he had practically no contact with friends. His main activity this year was playing the online game World of Warcraft.

The period from 2006 is central in the assessment of the criminal sanity of the defendant; hence, the Court will go into further detail on his gaming activities and what World of Warcraft is about.

The defendant set up an account to play World of Warcraft on 2 March 2006. WoW, with a recommended lower age limit of 12, is an online roleplayer game in which several players can play on teams with a common objective. The game is mainly about solving assignments for rewards. Such an assignment may be anything from collecting carrots to killing a dragon.

Solving an assignment in the game may take weeks. As you proceed, solving assignments, you will get access to «gold» and «properties» and be awarded points. Gradually, you can advance to new levels in the game. All playing takes place in real time online, and the players collaborate verbally through microphone headsets connected to each player's computer.

The defendant played a character by the name A Nordic until 2009. In 2009, his character changed the name to Conservatism. In the document Agenda New.doc, which is a diary found on a seized computer in the apartment in –––veien, the defendant writes that he has had several roles in the game, including guild master [sic ], and played in several guilds until 2009. A guild is the same as a team, and a guild master is a team leader. A team leader is responsible for coordinating the players' efforts in the game.

According to the defendant's diary, he was a guild master for the team Virtue in 2006.

This was confirmed by a witness who played World of Warcraft actively himself in the

26.09.2012

21

Utskrift fra Lovdata

period 2005 to 2008, in periods on the same guild as the defendant. After the expansion pack The Burning Crusade was released, the defendant joined the guild Unit in 2007, where the witness was the guild master. The witness described the Unit activity level as high. The players would play six to seven days a week, and for up to 12 to 16 hours a day, including their own preparations. The witness himself played 16 hours a day, and believed that the defendant played nearly as much. He explained that the defendant's player rank was «Officer», and that the defendant was the best officer the witness had had. In the diary, the defendant describes himself as a deputy guild master until the guild split up later on the same year. The defendant then joined the team Nevermore, where he was a regular player for 18 months.

The player witness further described the defendant as a social player, with many friends in the game. The defendant appeared knowledgeable, and was good at motivating guild mates. He never discussed politics, but might for instance discuss soccer. The defendant never mentioned that he was writing a book. The witness has not met the defendant outside of cyberspace.

The defendant's World of Warcraft account was inactive from 29 May to 10 December 2008. According to the defendant's own posting to World of Warcraft forum sites, in this period he played the computer game Age of Conan. The defendant resumed playing World of Warcraft on 10 December 2008, and on 20 January 2009 he joined the guild Goosfraba. A chart shows that in the period from 23 November 2010 until 3 March 2011, the defendant played on average 6.5 hours a day, and on certain days as much as 17 hours. There is no evidence of any playing time after 3 March 2011.

3. The runup to the terrorist acts 3.1 The compendium The same day the terrorist acts were committed, the defendant distributed a compendium, also referred to as the Manifesto, to a number of email addresses. The compendium was written under the pseudonym A2. It has not been established when the defendant started working on the compendium; however, he claims himself it was in 2007. At the trial the defendant stated that the compendium had been made to create a foundation for the development of a revolutionary right in Europe.

The compendium consists of 1518 pages – 1801 pages after the police's reformatting – and it is written in English. It is titled «2083 A European Declaration of Independence». The defendant explained that 2083 refers to the year that will mark the 400th anniversary of the Battle of Vienna in 1683. He believes this was one of the two most important battles in the history of Europe, because it prevented the Ottoman Empire from conquering all of Western Europe. The rest of its title, European Declaration of Independence, is supposedly taken from an essay written by a blogger known as Fjordman.

The compendium is divided into three books. Book 1 is titled: «What you need to know, our falsified history and other forms of cultural Marxist/multiculturalist propaganda». Book 1 provides a subjective presentation of European history with a particular emphasis on describing Islam as a violenceoriented ideology. Little of its content has been written by the defendant himself; it consists of texts taken from different sources, presumably from the Internet. Book 2 is titled «Europe Burning». The defendant has described book 2 as the ideological part of the compendium. Some of it has been written by the defendant himself, but most of it has been taken from the writings of others. Book 3 is titled «A declaration of preemptive War» and it was written by the defendant himself. He describes this book as the military part of the manifesto, where the reader is encouraged to participate in an ongoing civil war in Europe.

In book 3, the defendant has, amongst other things, described his own tasks, and circumstances linked to the preparations for and execution of the terrorist acts on 22 July 2011. He has furthermore given a description of a network he calls the Knights Templar. He writes, inter alia, that he took 50 pages of notes during the network's founding meeting in London in 2002, which later formed the basis of the compendium. In police interviews and

26.09.2012

22

Utskrift fra Lovdata

in his statement in court, the defendant has upheld the compendium's description of the basic features of the Knights Templar. He has nonetheless gradually toned down the importance of the organisation and its members, stating, inter alia, that he in the compendium has presented a pompous description of the factual circumstances.

3.2 Knights Templar According to the police's notes, the defendant said the following when he was arrested on 22 July 2011: «We want to seize power in Europe within 60 years. I am a Commander of the Knights Templar Norway. The Knights Templar was established in 2002 in London with delegates from 12 countries. We are crusaders and nationalists.»

The defendant's presentation of his role within the Knights Templar has been central in relation to the question of his criminal sanity. The police investigation shows that the network most probably does not exist, and the question is whether the defendant's description of the Knights Templar may be a manifestation of delusions. The Court shall therefore present the main features of the defendant's description of the Knights Templar.

The defendant has stated that he came into contact with militant nationalists on the Internet in 2001, later leading to the establishment of the Knights Templar. NATO's bombing of Serbia during the conflict in Kosovo in 1999 was, according to the defendant, «the straw that broke the camel's back» for many of these militant nationalists.

In April 2002, the defendant went to Liberia, purportedly to meet a militant Serbian nationalist, before continuing to London to participate in the founding meeting of the Knights Templar. The police investigation has shown that the defendant was in Liberia at the time in question, but there is nothing to indicate that the defendant had any contact with a Serbian during his stay there. The police believe the purpose of the trip was to explore the possibilities of buying diamonds.

The defendant has all along maintained that he met three other nationalists at the founding meeting in London. The police investigation confirms that the defendant was in London in early May 2002; however, it has not been established what he did or who, if any, he met during his stay there. Neither in police interviews nor at the trial did the defendant want to give any further information about the establishment of or the members of the Knights Templar, presumably because such information may contribute towards revealing other members of the Knights Templar network.

According to the defendant's statement, the Knights Templar is not an organisation in the traditional sense. The defendant has all along maintained that between 15 and 80 persons from different European countries belong to the network. They operate as autonomous and independent oneman cells, and there is no contact among them. With the current situation in Europe, it is impossible to establish a European militant organisation, because it will be discovered by national intelligence services. The defendant has also upheld his earlier statement that he met persons with links to the Knights Templar network during two farright extremist gatherings in the Baltic in 2004. The police investigation has revealed that the defendant was in Lithuania in January and in Estonia in April 2004, presumably to open accounts that later were used for laundering the proceeds of fake school certificate sales.

The defendant has furthermore explained that the Knights Templar is a network of militant nationalists. The name comes from the Knights Templar Order, which was a Catholic monastic order with military functions. This monastic order participated in the Crusades in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. According to the defendant, the Knights Templar is to defend the interests of the European indigenous people by contributing to the deportation of as many Muslims as possible from Europe. According to the defendant, the Knights Templar is a military order and a military tribunal that defines its own targets and means, including who are to be killed.

The Knights Templar network's ideal is the «crusader identity». A knight is a «perfect foot soldier» in the struggle against Muslim invasion in Europe. The defendant refers to him self alternately as «cell commander», «knight» and «foot soldier». The defendant explained

26.09.2012

23

Utskrift fra Lovdata

in court that the symbols including rituals, medals and uniforms described in the compendium do not exist, but that they are meant as suggestions to future members.

Based on the evidence provided during the main hearing, the Court has not found grounds indicating that the Knights Templar exists. The Court shall revert to the significance of this in the assessment of the defendant's criminal sanity.

3.3 The defendant's stated motives – ideology The defendant has stated political motives for the terrorist acts of 22 July 2011. The defendant's political views are presented in his compendium and have also been discussed during police interviews and during the courtappointed experts' conversations with him. At the trial, the defendant started his statement with a prepared, continuous account of his political views. He also underwent a lengthy incourt examination on this topic. Below follows a short presentation of some of the principal elements of the defendant's views.

The defendant is of the opinion that ethnic Norwegians have been under attack in the form of ethnic «deconstruction» since the Labour Party opened up for mass immigration in the 1960s. Norway has been transformed into a multicultural state, where the Norwegian indigenous population is in the process of being exterminated. All the parties in Parliament (Storting), but particularly the Labour Party, are responsible for this. Today's immigration policy will result in Muslims forming the majority population, first in large cities such as Oslo, during the course of 5 to 10 years, and later throughout the entire country.

Leading Norwegian politicians are participating, according to the defendant, in cooperation with European elites where the aim is to promote «multiculturalism». The multicultural project has never been submitted to Norwegian voters, but, on the contrary, has been kept concealed by politicians and the media. The Norwegian press has defining powers and real freedom of expression does not exist. What is today called democracy is in reality a cultural Marxist dictatorship. When nationalists and cultural conservatives are not allowed access to the media, it will not be possible either to stop the «deconstruction» of Norwegian ethnicity, culture and Christian value base, by using peaceful means. Armed revolution is then the only alternative. The defendant claims that if he and likeminded persons can force the Labour Party to change their immigration policy, then this could contribute to preventing civil war in Norway.

The defendant is of the opinion that Norwegian culture has been destroyed by the Marxists through a Marxist cultural revolution. The curriculum of Norwegian schools supports this. Songs such as «Children of the Rainbow» are used to brainwash school pupils.

Women should not work, but devote themselves to their families and the production of ethnic Norwegian children. Institutions should also be established for this purpose. The defendant wishes to see a militant church, as the church was before the Reformation when the Pope was the highest military leader in Europe. Christian leaders in Norway and the rest of Europe should support militant nationalists who are fighting against the de-Christianization of Europe.

The defendant described himself as an ultranationalist. The mandate to kill in order to save «his people» is something he has given himself as cell commander of the Knights Templar. By means of the acts of 22 July 2011, he wanted to provoke a witch hunt against moderate cultural conservative nationalist. The witch hunt will contribute to more censorship, which in turn will lead to polarization and contribute to further radicalization.

The more people lose faith in a peaceful fight, the more will become revolutionaries. The defendant describes the terrorist acts of 22 July as a preemptive attack in defence of the Norwegian indigenous people and Norwegian culture. He himself is merely a tool for a revolution. Universal human rights allow for the defence of one's own ethnic group and culture.

The defendant explains his own radicalization as the result of confrontations that he and his friends have had with Muslims during childhood and adolescent years. None of the defendant's friends who testified in court during the trial were able to confirm any of these incidents. The Court takes for a fact that the development of the defendant's anti-Islam views are connected, inter alia, with his rightwing extremist contacts on the Internet.

26.09.2012

24

Utskrift fra Lovdata

The Court would note that the evidence presented at the trial has demonstrated that the defendant's extreme immigrationcritical views are shared by others.Both the terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001 and the cartoon dispute in Denmark have nourished anti-Islamic currents. Within rightwing extremist groups there are also others who believe that there exists a secret cooperation to Islamize Europe, something that is expressed, inter alia, on a number of websites. Such conspiracy theories clearly have gained some foothold.

One such conspiracy theory is called Eurabia. The supporters of this conspiracy theory claim, inter alia, that European countries are systematically being Islamized through planned immigration from Muslim countries. Few likeminded people share the defendant's view that this Islamization must be combated by means of terrorism. It suffices for the Court to refer to the fact that the witnesses Postdoctoral Fellow Lars Gule, journalist Øyvind Strømme, Professor Mattias Gardell, Senior Researcher Brynjar Lia and Professor Tore Bjørgo all gave detailed accounts on this score.

3.4 Preparations The defendant initiated the practical preparations for the terrorist acts in 2009.

In May 2009, he set up the company Geofarm, which in the course of March 2011 was converted into A Geofarm. The purpose of this business enterprise was presumably to purchase ingredients for the manufacture of the bomb.

It has been established that the defendant applied for credit cards to several credit card companies during September/October 2009. In total, he had ten different credit cards which he used. The total credit limit was NOK 235 000. The credit cards were hardly used before April 2011. The defendant ran out of funds in his Norwegian bank accounts on 26 April 2011. Most transactions after this date were made with credit cards. The remaining credit on 23 July 2011 was NOK 27 618.

In the compendium, the defendant is depicted in a selfmade uniform with references to the Knights Templar. The police have traced the purchases of uniform insignia back to eleven different purchases from eleven suppliers in five countries between September 2009 and May 2010.

Both in the Government District and on the island of Utøya, the defendant wore clothes and equipment which bore resemblance to the uniform of the police. The police have identified a total of 36 purchases from 29 suppliers in eight countries linked to this equipment between April 2010 and March 2011; however, most of the purchases were made between May and July 2010.

The defendant acquired four weapons – two rifles, one pistol and one shotgun – as well as ammunition for the weapons. He resold one of the rifles. In total, the police have identified 22 purchases linked to the weapons/ammunition from 14 retailers in four countries. Most purchases were made between May 2010 and June 2011.

On 6 April 2011, the defendant signed the lease to rent Vålstua farm in Østerdalen Valley from 1 May 2011. The rent was NOK 10 000 per month. The defendant paid a deposit of NOK 30 000. He moved to the farm on 4 May 2011. The main purpose of renting the farm was its suitability for the manufacture of the bomb.

The bomb which was detonated in the Government District, weighed 950 kilos with a probable explosive force of between 400 and 700 kilo of TNT. The explosive in the bomb, made by the defendant himself, consisted of a mixture of artificial fertiliser, diesel and aluminium. The police have identified 43 purchases from 36 suppliers in five countries between September 2010 and July 2011 which are linked to the manufacture of the bomb.

In court, the defendant described how the various components of the bomb were produced and put together to make the bomb. During interviews with the police, he also described the manufacturing process. The description has subsequently been verified by the police, who concluded that the bomb was manufactured like the defendant explained. The police have also carried out a test detonation of a bomb manufactured according to the defendant's descriptions.

The bomb was manufactured at Vålstua farm, and the defendant spent several weeks on this process. The Court was shown an illustration which the defendant himself made at the

26.09.2012

25

Utskrift fra Lovdata

request of the police. The drawing shows the manufacturing process of the bomb. An essential component was artificial fertiliser, which he bought from Felleskjøpet at Rena. The artificial fertiliser came in prills (small spheres) that had to be ground. The defendant used food processors to accomplish this.

On 15 July 2011, the defendant picked up the «bomb van», a VW crafter, from Avis car rental in Oslo. The defendant also rented a Fiat Doblò. On 20 July, he drove the Crafter to Oslo. He parked the car in the vicinity of his mother's flat and spent the night there. On 21 July 2011, he took the train back to Rena and a taxi back to the farm. At the farm, the defendant completed his last preparations before driving the Doblò to Oslo and parking it near his mother's flat at approximately 23:30. The defendant spent the night at his mother's flat.

In the morning of 22 July 2011, some activity on the defendant's computer has been registered from 08:15 until 10:39. The defendant then prepared to distribute his compendium. He then drove the Doblò, which he later used as a getaway car, from Skøyen to Hammersborg Torg Square, in the vicinity of the Government District, and paid for a parking ticket at 12:03. He walked from Hammersborg Torg Square, via the Government District, where he was filmed by CCTV cameras from 12:06:59 until 12:09:19, to Stortorvet.

He then took a taxi back to his mother's flat.

Back in the flat, he uploaded the video «Knights Templar 2083 – Movie Trailer» to the websites Veoh.com and Youtube.com. The defendant explained that the video was made around February 2010, and that it is a short version of the compendium. The defendant made the video by downloading pictures from the Internet, edited some of them in Photoshop and combined all the pictures with text and music in Windows Movie Maker, the video editing programme. The video, which is mentioned at the beginning of the compendium, is a 12-minute 22-second footage. It consists of 99 still photos with images and/or text. The video is divided into four parts: (1) The Rise of Cultural Marxism in Western Europe, (2) Islamic Colonization, (3) Hope, (4) New Beginning.

The defendant sent out an email with the compendium as an attachment to a number of email addresses. The police examination of the defendant's computer showed that he attempted to send it to 8 109 email addresses at 14:09. The email with the compendium was registered as being received by 958 email addresses.

The defendant has explained that he used two Facebook accounts to distribute the email.

He sent out friend requests to a great number of people, and whenever his friend request was accepted, he would save the email address in a list which in the end totalled 8 109 email addresses. Moreover, he has said that the addresses were collected in the course of a period of just over 4 months, from November 2009 to February 2010.

As part of the defendant's performanceenhancing preparations, he took three courses of anabolic steroids over an 18-month period prior to the terrorist attacks; one from February until May 2010, one from December 2010 until February 2011, and one from April until 22 July 2011. The last course consisted of a daily intake of 40 mg of Dianabol from 25 April to 15 June 2011, followed by a daily intake of 50 mg of Stanasolol. The defendant explained that he also worked out at a fitness centre and exercised by going hiking with a stonefilled backpack. Additionally, he obtained shooting practice through his membership in a pistol club.

Furthermore, the defendant took a stimulant called «ekastack», during the last two or three days before the terrorist attacks. Ekastack consists of ephedrine, caffeine and Aspirin.

Professor Jørg Mørland, Dr. Med., of the National Institute of Public Health, who carried out an expert assessment of whether the defendant was under the influence at the time of committing the acts, wrote the following about the substance ephedrine in his expert report: «Ephedrine can, depending on the dosage, have a stimulating effect on the central nervous system, similar to that of amphetamine. Higher dosages and higher blood concentrations can give intoxication symptoms where increased selfconfidence, increased willingness to take risks and chances, as well as impaired critical sense, may occur. It is also assumed that there will be an increased risk of aggression and violence.»

26.09.2012

26

Utskrift fra Lovdata

From the ephedrine and caffeine concentrations found in blood and hair samples taken during the early hours of 23 July 2011, Mørland concluded that during the period 12:00 to 15:30 on 22 July 2011, the defendant was «slightly to moderately» under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant, similar to the influence achieved after an oral intake of 10–30 mg of amphetamine by someone not accustomed to using it. The use of anabolic steroids was not considered to have resulted in any additional effect, but «the possibility that it may have exaggerated any aggression and hypomania/mania can not be completely ruled out».

The defendant has also explained that he prepared himself mentally for the forthcoming terrorist acts by using a meditation technique to «deemotionalise» himself. This technique, which according to the defendant is the same as the one used by Japanese warriors, involved efforts where he concentrated intensely on what he was doing, while listening to specially selected music. The defendant was observed with earplugs when he was walking around on Utøya, but he said himself that he did not listen to music while he was on the island.

Finally, the defendant explained that he played a violent computer game called «Call of Duty, Modern Warfare II» in the time leading up to the terrorist acts. He allegedly used the game to simulate combat with the police Delta force. Police investigation confirms that he played «Call of Duty» since 2010 for about 130 hours.

4. Particulars of the terrorist acts 4.1 The Government District 4.1.1 Introduction On Friday 22 July 2011 around 15:00, the defendant drove the bomb van (the Crafter) from Skøyen to the Government District, where he parked it at 15:17 near Einar Gerhardsen Square. There are a number of CCTV cameras in the area. The bomb explosion itself and its impact have therefore been well documented, and approximately a 15-minute video footage from the relevant time period was played to the Court.

In the video, one can see the car being parked just outside the entrance to the H-block. As stated above, the defendant had placed a selfmade bomb of approximately 950 kilos inside the car. The defendant lit a fuse with a burn time of some seven minutes and then left the car by foot. The video shows that he walked briskly in the direction of his getaway car (the Doblò). The defendant was wearing a selfmade uniform with reflective ribbons and insignia, which resembled the police uniforms. He wore a bulletproof vest and a helmet with visor and he had a pistol in a holster strapped to his thigh.

The footage shows images from the explosion at 15:25:22 filmed by several CCTV cameras.

Eight people died as a result of the explosion. Many persons were injured, several of them seriously. The indictment names the dead and the nine persons who were most seriously injured. During the prosecution's opening statement, a list of 480 persons who were present in the Government District when the bomb detonated, but whose names were not included in the indictment, was submitted. At the trial, several of these persons gave detailed and strong testimonies about their experiences, which the Court has also used as its basis for the further presentation of the course of events. It was purely a matter of chance that no further human lives were lost.

No buildings collapsed as a result of the explosion, but several of the buildings in the Government District were completely destroyed by the bomb. Buildings inside a 100-metre radius of the blast were especially hard hit. Furthermore, shattered window panes were registered in a vicinity of 400 metres from the blast site. A large number of window panes in the Government District were shattered and building façades incurred material damage.

Outside the H-block, glass, building debris and documents were strewn, blown out by the shock wave from the bomb. The bomb van left a 3–4-metre crater. Inside the buildings, furniture and equipment were smashed. The bomb sent heavy smoke aloft causing fire to break out in the R4 building, which houses the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

26.09.2012

27

Utskrift fra Lovdata

Dead and injured persons were found in the midst of the chaos of glass, documents and building debris, both inside and outside. Many injured people managed to get out on their own, but it was difficult to find the way inside the destroyed premises. Search and rescue work was also made difficult because of the extensive damage. In addition to the efforts of the fire and rescue personnel, security personnel, health personnel and the police, ministry employees and bypassers did what they could to help.

Many of those affected, including those who were not physically injured, have later struggled with psychological aftereffects of varying scope and duration. The Court received accounts of anxiety, a sense of feeling unsafe, depression, sleeplessness and concentration difficulties. Many people have been on sick leave after the terrorist attack. Professor Are Holen, Department of Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and Associate Professor Dagfinn Winje, submitted their expert reports on 10 April 2012 concerning possible health problems that may result from the terrorist attacks in the Government District and on Utøya Island. Acute strain problems, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and/or various types of anxiety disorders are among the mental injuries that may be expected. At the trial, the experts elaborated further on various factors of the traumatising incident that may lead to an increased prevalence of mental injuries and reactions. Among other things, they emphasised factors such as the cause and gravity of the incident, whether the incident could have been predicted and prevented, and the scope of personal loss suffered, including the death of or serious injury to persons close to them.

4.1.2 The murders The Court will first give an account of each individual murder. The descriptions below of where the deceased were located and the cause of death are based on the autopsy reports, as well as the statements of Police Superintendent Ole Morten Størseth and Doctor Arne Stray-Pedersen at the National Institute of Public Health.

N001, born *.*.1979, worked in the Law Department of the Ministry of Justice. He was on holiday, but was stopping by his workplace to hand in a manuscript. N001 was in the process of crossing Einar Gerhardsen Square on his way into the reception area of the H-block and was in the immediate proximity of the van when the bomb exploded. N001 died immediately of massive injuries caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit him.

N002, born *.*.1977, worked in the International Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice.

She was on her way out of the H-block and in the immediate proximity of the van when the bomb exploded. N002 died immediately of massive injuries caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit her.

N003, born *.*.1981, worked in the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion. She was outside the entrance of the H-block when the bomb exploded and she died instantly of very extensive injuries to the head and body caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit her.

N004, born *.*.1959, worked in the Office of the Prime Minister. She was in the reception area on the ground floor of the H-block when the bomb went off. She died immediately of extensive injuries to the neck and spinal cord caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit her.

N005, born *.*.1950, worked as a receptionist with the Government Administration Services, and was on duty in the H-block at the time in question. She was in the reception area on the ground floor when the bomb exploded and she died immediately of extensive injuries to the chest and abdomen caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit her.

N006, born *.*.1984, worked in the Civil Affairs Department of the Ministry of Justice.

She was in the reception area on the ground floor of the H-block when the bomb exploded, and died immediately of massive injuries to the head and body caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit her.

N007, born *.*.1978, did not have any connection to the ministries, but was running his own restaurant in Kristian Augusts gate. He happened to be walking past Grubbegata near the driveway leading to the H-block main entrance when the bomb went off. He died immediately of massive injuries to the head, chest and abdomen caused by the shockwave

26.09.2012

28

Utskrift fra Lovdata

and splinters/objects that hit him.

N008, born *.*.1954, did not have any connection to the ministries either. She was on her way home from work at EL & IT Forbundet (the Electrician and IT Workers' Union), and was in the proximity of the fountain at Einar Gerhardsen Square when the bomb exploded.

She died rapidly of extensive injuries to the throat and chest caused by the shockwave and splinters/objects that hit her.

4.1.3 The attempted murders In the explosion, nine persons were seriously injured. Apart from two of these â&#x20AC;&#x201C; N009 and N010 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; they all testified in court. For Mr. N009 and Ms. N010, their police statements were read out at the trial. For all of them, medical certificates were submitted, describing their injuries in further detail.

The indictment provides an accurate description of the physical injuries inflicted upon these aggrieved parties. Nevertheless, the Court will give a brief description of the injuries.

The descriptions below of how each person was injured, and the extent of the injuries, are based on the statements of the aggrieved parties and on medical certificates.

In addition to the physical injuries, are the psychological aftereffects. Here, the Court will not mention these specifically. However, it is obvious that many of the aggrieved parties have had considerable psychological reactions as a consequence of the terrorist act.

N009, born *.*.1949, was on his way to pick up his wife, who works in the Ministry of Justice, and he was standing outside the couple's car by the fountain at Einar Gerhardsen Square when the bomb exploded. He sustained extensive fracture injuries and wounds to the head/face and right lower leg, chest wounds and haemorrhaging under the dura mater.

Several splinters had to be removed surgically from his chest and face, and his right leg subsequently had to be amputated below the knee. N009 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 19 September 2011, where he was operated on approximately 13 times. Thereafter he stayed in Sunnaas Hospital until 15 November 2011 and at Fram Health Rehabilitation Centre until 10 January 2012.

N010, born *.*.1964, happened to cross Einar Gerhardsen Square to catch the bus, and was close to the fountain when the bomb exploded. She sustained extensive wounds to the head/face, chest, arms and legs. She had fractures to the skull and facial bones and injuries to both ears. The artery of her left upper arm was ruptured, causing injuries to nerves, muscles and ligaments of the same arm. Damaged tissue had to be removed from the chest. Her hearing has been impaired and she is suffering from tinnitus. She has a large scar from her chest to her right armpit. She has lost the force of her left arm, and is unable to lift her right arm. N010 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 26 August 2011, where she underwent several operations, inter alia, to remove splinters.

N011, born *.*.1986, had a summer job at OBOS very close to the Government District, and was in Grubbegata at Einar Gerhardsen Square when the bomb exploded. He sustained serious wounds to the arms and legs, as well as burns to one of his arms. N011 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until the middle of August 2011 and underwent five operations, inter alia, to remove splinters. He has also had intense abdominal pains, possibly related to internal bleeding. N011 has been admitted to hospital thrice due to these pains.

N012, born *.*.1944, is employed with the Correctional Services Department at the Ministry of Justice. He was on the 4th floor of the H-block when the bomb went off. N012 fell unconscious as the bomb went off, and he woke up after a while without vision. N012 sustained extensive wounds and fracture injuries to the head/face, including a fractured jaw and extensive dental injuries, in addition to wounds on the arms and left flank. There were also lung and liver injuries caused by the pressure, and minor bleeding in the brain. Multiple eye injuries have resulted in an 80% loss of vision. N012 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 24 August 2011, where he was operated on several times. Thereafter he was at the Cato Rehabilitation Centre until 21 September 2011. At the time of the trial, several operations still remained to be done. His hearing has been reduced, and he has suffered from head pains.

26.09.2012

29

Utskrift fra Lovdata

N013, born *.*.1987, had a summer job as a receptionist with the Government Administration Services. On 22 July she was on duty in the reception on the ground floor in the H-block. N013 was found on the outside of the building. She sustained serious head injuries, involving a cranial fracture, crush injuries to cerebral tissue and bleeding under the thin meninges. Furthermore, she sustained a fracture of the facial skeleton, pressure injuries to both lungs, injury to the liver and a number of wounds to the head/face and on both legs.

N013 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 22 August 2011. She underwent lifesaving treatment and was operated on several times. After the explosion she was in a coma for a long time, and later she has had vision loss and posttraumatic amnesia.

For instance, she did not remember her parents' names. From Oslo University Hospital she was transferred to Sunnaas Hospital, where she stayed until 17 November 2011, and she was later hospitalized in the same hospital in the period 3 January to 22 February 2012 for cognitive treatment. N013 has studied political science for three years, but she has forgotten what she learned. She has plans to resume her studies, but is now being taught at lower secondary school level.

N014, born *.*.1950, is employed at the International Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice, and was on the 7th floor of the H-block when the bomb exploded. She made her way out of the building together with N015 and another colleague. N014 was taken to the emergency clinic and treated for extensive wounds to the head and face. Several of the wounds and injuries were closed with a total of some 60 sutures. N014 also sustained an injury to the left eye, resulting in impaired binocular vision. She has problems with coordination and depth vision, and suffers from dizziness and impairment of memory. She also has balance problems.

N015, born *.*.1961, works in the Polar Department of the Ministry of Justice. She was on the 10th floor of the H-block when the bomb exploded. N015 got out of the building together with N014 and another colleague. During the explosion she was hit by an approximately 30 cmlong, fingerthick wooden splinter from the window ledge that penetrated the head next to the left ear, passing backwards between the cranium and the skin.

N015 was treated at the Oslo Emergency Clinic, where the wooden splinter was removed surgically and the wound closed with 27 sutures. She explained at the trial that splinters were still coming out of her head. In addition to the abovementioned injury, she also sustained a concussion and an injury to a jaw muscle.

N016, born *.*.1980, works in the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate.

He was on the first floor of the government building R4 when the bomb went off. N016 sustained, inter alia, serious head injuries involving bleeding between the brain and outer meninges, serious injuries to the abdomen involving considerable internal bleeding, as well as fractures of the neck and several ribs. N016 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 10 August, where he was in a coma for nearly two weeks. He underwent lifesaving treatment and was operated on several times, and had to have, inter alia, parts of the small intestine removed and a drain tube inserted in the brain to relieve pressure after the haemorrhage. Besides, N016 was treated for pneumonia he contracted while in the coma. He was transferred to Sunnaas Hospital, where he stayed until 15 September 2011. Then he stayed at home for a month, before again being hospitalized in Sunnaas for one month.

N017, born *.*.1956, works in the Ministry of Transport and Communications, but was at Johan Nygaardsvold Square between the H-block and Akersgata when the bomb exploded. He was struck by flying objects and thrown across the square by a pressure wave.

N017 was taken to Oslo University Hospital, where extensive fracture injuries and wounds to, inter alia , the head/face and to both legs were ascertained. He sustained fractures of the shoulder blade, collar bone and several ribs. Both lungs were punctured. The right ankle was crushed, and the left leg subsequently had to be amputated above the knee. He was kept in an induced coma for a few weeks. Especially the left side of the body was badly affected, with damaged muscles in the left arm. N017 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 25 August 2011, where he underwent 10 operations before being transferred to Sunnaas Hospital for further treatment. He stayed in Sunnaas Hospital for seven months.

26.09.2012

30

Utskrift fra Lovdata

4.1.4 Consequences for the central government administration Ingelin Killengreen, Secretary General of the Ministry of Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs, stated at the trial that the terrorist attack had taken a heavy toll on the work at the Office of the Prime Minister and in the affected ministries. In addition to the loss of competent staff members, a number of employees had to be placed on sick leaves because of physical or psychological injuries that in part were quite serious. Also for employees not at work on 22 July 2011 it has been a heavy burden to have their workplace destroyed by a terrorist attack. Many have subsequently experienced mental reactions with a sense of fundamental uncertainty. The situation of the employees has not been made any the easier by the enormous workload that arose in the wake of the terrorist attack.

Work at the Office of the Prime Minister and the affected ministries was further complicated as a consequence of the enormous material damage caused by the bomb explosion. Comprehensive rescue work was initiated immediately and all the ministries in the Government District had to be evacuated. Timeconsuming efforts aimed at setting up alternative office solutions for several thousand employees also had to be initiated immediately. After having taken care of its functions in the Prime Minister's residence and in the Government's official residence for entertaining, the Office of the Prime Minister was given some office premises at the Ministry of Defence. For staff members of the various ministries and the Government Administration Services, different solutions were provided like home offices, rented premises and premises belonging to government agencies. Contact between staff members was maintained through the extensive use of courier cars, taxis and mobile phones. Additionally, access to the ICT systems had to be reestablished and security provisions applicable to information and premises had to be implemented. The terrorist attack also led to reprioritizing of daytoday tasks and to cases being delayed.

The efforts to obtain new premises have been an ongoing process and it still remains to be decided whether the buildings of the damaged Government District are to be used again.

The financial consequences are also considerable. Expenses covered in 2011 and 2012 are estimated at MNOK 600, while a new Government District probably will cost between 5 and 10 billion NOK. It will take between 10 and 12 years to complete a new Government District.

4.2 Utøya Island 4.2.1 Introduction After the defendant had lit the fuse of the bomb, he walked to the getaway car parked at Hammersborg Square and drove out of Oslo city. The defendant explained that he heard on the car radio that four persons had died and that the H-block had not collapsed. He thought then that the explosion had been a failure and he decided to go through with part II of the planned terrorist attack; to kill everybody attending the Norwegian Labour Youth (AUF) summer camp at Utøya. The defendant had checked AUF's website and he knew that Gro Harlem Brundtland was going to visit Utøya on 22 July 2011.

The defendant drove to the Utøya pier on the mainland side. The distance from this point to the ferry landing on Utøya is nearly 650 metres. The vessel MS Thorbjørn is used for transporting passengers. He stopped the car by the road leading down to the pier, he took off his bulletproof vest and he put on a combat vest with ammunition in the breast pockets. The defendant was still wearing uniformlike pants with reflective ribbons and a sweater with an emblem. Around his neck he hung a selfmade ID that was similar to the one used by the police.

He then drove down to the ferry landing and parked the car. At the ferry landing he talked to a camp participant who was on duty as a security guard for the AUF on the mainland side that day. The guard explained at the trial that the defendant drove slowly and in a controlled manner down to the ferry landing and he did not notice anything unusual about his behaviour. The defendant introduced himself as a police officer, and at the request of the security guard he exhibited his ID. The defendant said that he had come to secure the Utøya island in the wake of the terrorist attack in Oslo.

26.09.2012

31

Utskrift fra Lovdata

The guard then called the shipmaster of MS Thorbjørn and asked him to come and pick up a policeman on the mainland side. In addition to the deckhand, the shipmaster's cohabitant N019 also came with the ferry when it crossed over to pick up the defendant. The defendant brought with him a long box that he said contained bombdetection equipment. The defendant also fetched a rifle, which N019 asked him to cover. The rifle was then covered with two plastic bags. The shipmaster did not react to the defendant's behaviour on the mainland side either, but he explained in court that the defendant spoke fast and with determination and that he seemed «rigid» while talking with N019 on board the vessel.

The defendant was transported to Utøya on board the ferry MS Thorbjørn, and he arrived there at about 17:17 hours. He brought with him a semiautomatic rifle, a pistol, ammunition for both firearms, smoke grenades and other equipment.

There were 564 persons on the island of Utøya on 22 July 2011, most of whom were camp participants and members of the Norwegian Labour Youth, the AUF. The youngest camp participant was 13 years old. Others present on the island were administrative staff and their family members, including two children aged 10 and 11, representatives of Norwegian People's Aid and Norwegian and international guests.

Until the defendant was apprehended by the police at the Schoolhouse around 18:34 hours, he fired shots with his rifle and pistol at a number of persons on the island, in the water and on board boats. Police Superintendent Morten Støen from the National Criminal Investigation Service, KRIPOS, stated that the investigation had revealed that probably a total of 121 shots were fired with the pistol and 176 shots with the rifle. The defendant shot and killed a total of 67 persons on Utøya. In addition, two persons died of injuries they sustained while fleeing. The defendant shot and injured an additional 33 persons.

Furthermore, a number of persons that were on Utøya sustained physical injuries while fleeing. In their opening statement, the prosecutors presented a list of 462 persons that were on the island of Utøya, but who have not been mentioned by name in the indictment. Several of them gave detailed and shocking statements at the trial, and these have been taken into consideration in the Court's presentation of the course of events below.

Shortly before the defendant shot and killed his first victims, the camp participants had received information about the explosion in the Government District. Panic arose as they realised shots were being fired on Utøya. Some hid indoors and in tents, while others ran to find hiding places around on the island and down towards the water's edge. Several tried to reach the mainland by swimming or using boats. Many observed in shock and disbelief that friends, fiancés and a cohabitant were shot and killed. Heartbreaking scenes unfolded as people hid, ran or swam for their lives while at the same time trying to help and comfort each other. In some places, the living and the dead lay side by side. Some were paralysed by fear as they were being shot at, some pretended to be dead, while others begged for their lives. Many hyperventilated. Telephone calls were made and text messages were exchanged with family and friends, partly to ask for help, partly to calm them down, and partly also to bid farewell. Many called the police's emergency phone number without getting through. In the ensuing panic and chaos, a number of persons were physically injured. Many had run off without shoes. The terrain was slippery because of the rain and people stumbled and slid through the forest, falling down steep slopes towards the water's edge.

Many of the survivors sustained psychological injuries and ailments of varying duration and seriousness. The Court has heard accounts of anguish, restlessness, depression and low spirits, apathy and inertia, nightmares and sleeplessness, concentration problems and feelings of guilt. Many have had to postpone their studies and some are on longterm sick leave. The quick and brave efforts of local residents of Hole Municipality and of camping tourists at Utvika Camping contributed towards limiting the damage and the number of victims.

Several of them have subsequently been suffering from psychological aftereffects.

According to the prosecution's list of those affected by the terrorist attacks that are not named in the indictment, five persons assisting in the rescue efforts were shot at. One of them gave evidence during the main hearing about his and his wife's rescue efforts. As already mentioned, the expert witnesses Holen and Winje have explained the mental health problems that may strike all those who were affected by the terrorist acts on Utøya on 22

26.09.2012

32

Utskrift fra Lovdata

July 2011.

4.2.2 The murders Below the Court shall examine each of the murders in the order they appear in the indictment, which corresponds to the assumed order in which they were committed on 22 July 2011. The two persons who died of injuries sustained while fleeing are, as in the indictment, mentioned last. In the indictment, a more extensive description is given of the injuries the victims sustained as a consequence of the shots. The descriptions below of where the victims were found and their causes of death are based on the autopsy reports and the evidence given by Police Superintendents Gøran Dyresveen and Trond Sandsbråten, and by Professor Dr. Med. Torleiv Ole Rognum, Head Physicians Kari Ormstad, Åshild Vege and Per Hoff-Olsen; the latter four all belong to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. The more detailed description of the course of events is also based on witness statements from the survivors. Time indications, which are exact approximate times, have been taken directly from an overview of the course of events submitted by the prosecutors during their opening statement. Unless otherwise stated in connection with each individual victim, those killed and injured were youth participating at the summer camp of the Norwegian Labour Youth, the AUF. After the defendant went on shore at the ferry landing on Utøya, he walked in the direction of the Information Building, hereinafter referred to as the Main Building, while the shipmaster of MS Thorbjørn drove the defendant's box up to the rear side of the Main Building. Between the ferry landing and the Main Building the defendant shot and killed two persons at about 17:21 hours.

N018, born *.*.1960, usually worked as a police officer at the Police National Immigration Service, and he was a volunteer civilian security guard at Utøya during the summer camp. He shook hands with the defendant between the Main Building and the pier, and was shortly afterwards shot from behind. He was hit by one shot to the occiput, one shot to the neck, one to the right side of his back, one shot to the left side of the lower back and one shot in his right upper arm. The shot to the occiput caused immediate unconsciousness and rapid death.

N019, born *.*.1966, she was the manager of AUF's management company Utøya AS and she had been working on Utøya for a number of years. N019 too was between the Main Building and the pier when she was shot. She was hit by three shots. One shot entered the right vertex, one shot entered the right cheek and one shot entered the back. The gunshot injuries to the head led to immediate death.

The defendant walked on past the Main Building in the direction of the Cafe Building.

Here, he shot a person near the gravel road.

N020, born *.*.1967, was previously a security officer and he had been a security guard at the summer camps on Utøya for a number of years. He was between the Main Building and the Cafe Building when she was shot five times. He was hit by one shot close to the left ear, one shot to the left side of the abdomen, one shot to the right side of the chest, one shot to the right side of the back and one shot through the left cheek. The shot to the head caused immediate unconsciousness. N020 died of the gunshot wounds.

Next, the defendant continued towards the Cafe Building, where he shot and killed three persons outside the kiosk by the east end of the Cafe Building around 17:23. At some point after the defendant started shooting, one of the camp participants shouted in exasperation from an open window, asking him what he was doing. The defendant said he was a policeman who had come to protect them, which would be easier if they gathered outside.

The following persons were killed outside the kiosk by the Cafe Building: N021, born *.*.1967, she worked for Norwegian People's Aid at Utøya. She was shot three times. She was hit by two shots to the head and one in the back. The head injury led to immediate unconsciousness and rapid death.

N022, born *.*.1981, was a painter by profession and was at Utøya as a trade union representative. He had given a presentation earlier that day. He was hit by two shots to the occiput and one in the back. N022 died immediately of the gunshot injuries to the head.

26.09.2012

33

Utskrift fra Lovdata

N023, born *.*.1986, was shot three times. He was hit by two shots to the head and one in the back. N023 died of the gunshot injuries to the head.

The defendant then walked south of the Cafe Building, where he shot and killed two youth and shot and mortally wounded two persons who later were found at the tent site. This happened around 17:25.

The following persons were killed by the south side of the Cafe Building: N024, born *.*.1994, was in front of the Cafe Building. She was shot twice to the head.

This happened after she had tried to talk sense into the defendant. N024 died immediately of gunshot injuries to the occiput.

N025, born *.*.1995, was in the vicinity of the outdoor stage by the Cafe Building, and was shot two or three times. He was hit by one shot to the head and one to the chest. N025 also had an entry wound in the left forearm, just below the elbow. This injury may have been caused by the projectile that passed through the head, or it may have been a separate shot.

N025 died immediately of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

N026, born *.*.1996, was at the tent campby the Cafe Building, and was shot three times.

She was hit by one shot to the left shoulder, one shot to the back of the right knee and one shot to the front of the right calf. The gunshot injury in the back and the crush injuries to the lungs and external haemorrhage are assumed to have caused her death. According to V001's witness statement, N026 remained alive for several hours after being shot. The Court assumes this to be true.

N027, born *.*.1988, was at the lower part of the tent campsouthwest of the Cafe Building, and was shot twice. He was hit by one shot in the back and one to the occiput. The gunshot injuries to the head caused immediate loss of consciousness. N027 died the next day at Oslo University Hospital from the head injuries.

The defendant then entered the Little Hall in the Cafe Building, where a number of persons had sought refuge. Some fled out through doors and windows in the adjacent rooms, while others remained in the Little Hall, where they sought refuge behind a piano and a table. The defendant shot and killed seven youth in the Little Hall from about 17:26.

The persons killed in the Little Hall were: N028, born *.*.1995, was standing in the doorway between the Little Hall and the Big Hall of the Cafe Building and was shot three times. She was hit by one shot to the head, one from the rear to her right upper arm and one shot to her right thigh. N028 died immediately of the gunshots injuries to the head.

N029, born *.*.1993, was standing outside the door opening leading into the Big Hall and was shot six times. She was hit by one shot to the right temple, one shot to the throat, one shot to the right shoulder, one shot to the abdomen, one shot to the right flank and one shot to the right upper arm. The shot to the head led to immediate loss of consciousness and very rapid death.

The five others who were killed in the Little Hall were located along the wall between the Little and Big Hall.

N030, born *.*.1993, was shot three, possibly four times. She was hit by one shot to the head, one shot to the chest, one shot to the right hip and possibly a grazing shot to the back of her left lower leg. The head injury led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N031, born *.*.1994, was shot four times. She was hit by two shots to the head, one shot to the back and one shot to the left shoulder. N031 died immediately of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest/abdomen.

N032, born *.*.1993, was shot three times â&#x20AC;&#x201C; one shot to the head, one shot to the thorax and one shot to the right forearm. The gunshot injuries to the head led to immediate loss of consciousness and very rapid death.

N033, born *.*.1994, was shot six times. He was hit by one shot to the head, one shot to the chest, one shot to the right shoulder, one shot below the right knee, one shot to the right upper arm and one shot to the right arm. The head injuries led to immediate loss of consciousness. N033 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

N034, born *.*.1993, was shot eight times. He was hit by two shots to the head, one shot

26.09.2012

34

Utskrift fra Lovdata

to the right wrist, one shot to the left arm, one shot to the left upper arm, one shot to the thorax, one shot to the left leg and one shot to the left thigh. N034 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and cervical vertebral column.

From the Little Hall, the defendant moved to the Big Hall, which is located next door, where he shot and killed three persons who had huddled together along the wall towards the Little Hall and two persons along the windows. The time was now 17:27. Many had at this point in time managed to escape from the Big Hall through the corridor and adjacent rooms.

The persons killed in the Big Hall were: N035, born *.*.1996, was shot three, possibly four times. He was hit by two shots to the head and one shot to the thorax. He may possibly have had a gunshot wound on the tip of his index and middle fingers. N035 died immediately of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N036, born *.*.1992, was shot three, possibly four times. She was hit by one shot to the mouth, one shot to the throat, one shot to the left shoulder and possibly one grazing shot to the left side of the abdomen. The gunshot injuries to the head and throat led to immediate loss of consciousness and very rapid death.

N037, born *.*.1995, was shot three times. She was hit by two shots to the head and one shot to the right shoulder. The gunshot wounds to the head led to immediate loss of consciousness and very rapid death.

N038, born *.*.1984, was hit by three shots. He was hit by one shot to the corner of his right eye, one shot to the right nose wing and one to the left cheek. The gunshot wounds to the head led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N039, born *.*.1993, was shot twice, possibly three times. She was hit by one shot to the right side of the forehead and one shot to the right cheek. She also had an entry wound on the back of her right hand. This shot may thereafter have entered her right cheek. The injury to her head was immediately fatal.

The defendant then left the Cafe Building, but reentered and shot and killed one person in the corridor by the door leading into the Little Hall at approximately 17:28.

N040, born *.*.1994, was shot six times. He was hit by one shot to the head, one shot to the left flank, one shot to the left elbow, one shot to the right index finger, one shot to the left buttock, one shot to the rear of the right thigh. The injury to the head led immediately to loss of consciousness and rapid death.

After that, the defendant left the Cafe Building, walked through the tent camp and out onto what is called Lovers' Path. Here he shot and killed 15 persons in the period from approximately 17:31 to 17:37. The first 10 killings took place along a fence behind Lovers' Path southwest of the tent camp, where 11 young people had lain down in a cluster. Only one of them survived. The defendant tried to confuse them by asking them where the perpetrator was.

The persons who were killed along the fence behind Lovers' Path southwest of the tent camp were: N041, born *.*.1994, was shot twice. She was hit by one shot to the throat which continued into the head, and one shot to the left shoulder. N041 died immediately as a result of the gunshot injuries through the head.

N042, born *.*.1990, was shot once in the head. He died immediately of the gunshot injuries.

N043, born *.*.1993, was shot five times. He was hit by two shots to the head, one shot to the throat, one shot to the back and one shot to the left thigh. N043 died rapidly of the gunshot injuries.

N044, born *.*.1994, was shot three times. She was hit by one shot to the head, one shot under the skin of her back and one shot to the right thigh. The gunshot injuries to the head led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N045, born *.*.1993, was shot three times. She was hit by one shot to the head, one shot to the back and one shot through her right hand. N045 died immediately of the gunshot injuries to the head/throat/neck.

N046, born *.*.1994, was shot three times. She was hit by one shot to the occiput, one

26.09.2012

35

Utskrift fra Lovdata

shot to the right shoulder blade and one shot to the left ankle. N046 died immediately of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N047, born *.*.1993, was shot twice. He was hit by one shot to the occiput and one shot to the right ankle. The gunshot injuries to the head caused immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N048, born *.*.1992, was shot twice in the head. The gunshot injuries to the head caused immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N049, born *.*.1992, was shot three times. He was hit by two shots to the head and one shot to the neck. The gunshot injuries to the head caused immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N050, born *.*.1993, was shot three times. She was hit by two shots to the head and one shot to the left middle finger. N050 died immediately of the gunshot injuries to the head.

Thereafter, the defendant walked a few metres southward and shot youths who had hidden under the cliff between Lovers' Path and the shore. Of all those who had climbed or slid down to hide on cliff ledges and along the edge of the water in this area, five were killed.

The persons killed on or under the cliff between Lovers' Path and the shore were: N051, born *.*.1994, was located at the water's edge between the cliff below Lovers' Path and Naked Point. He was shot four times. He was hit by two shots to the right flank, one grazing shot to the right side of the back and one shot to the right side of the abdomen.

N051 was found in the water, approximately 30 meters from the shore. N051 died immediately of the gunshot injuries to the chest.

N052, born *.*.1992, was shot twice. He was hit by one shot to the back and one shot to the outer side of his right knee. The gunshot injuries to the chest led to rapid loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N053, born *.*.1995, was shot four times. She was hit by one shot to the neck, one shot to the back, one shot to the right flank and one shot to the left flank. N053 died rapidly of the gunshot injuries to the neck and back.

N054, born *.*.1997, was shot twice in the left shoulder. She sustained gunshot injuries to the chest that caused immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N055, born *.*.1995, was shot once in the right groin and was possibly also hit by a grazing shot. The gunshot injuries to the abdomen led to loss of consciousness and relatively rapid death.

The defendant then walked toward South Point and through the forest in the direction of what is called the Schoolhouse. He shot and killed two persons in the forest east of the Schoolhouse between 17:40 and 17:44.

The persons killed in the forest east of the Schoolhouse were: N056, born *.*.1994, was shot twice. N056 was hit by one shot to the head and one shot to the abdomen. N056 died immediately of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N057, born *.*.1996, was shot three times. He was hit by two shots to the head and one to the throat. The head injuries led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

Thereafter the defendant moved to the Schoolhouse and fired two shots through the door without hitting any of the nearly 50 persons who were hiding in the building. He then moved on to the pier below the Main Building where he fired shots at the boat Reiulf carrying twelve escaping youths. The boat sustained gunshot damage, but none of the youths were hit.

When the defendant passed by the Main Building on his way to the pier, he threw a smoke grenade at a window in the Main Building in order to try and smoke out the persons hiding there. When the pane failed to shatter, he threw another smoke grenade at the building from the opposite side. This smoke grenade went off inside the building, but no one came out. At the trial, the defendant stated that he had also brought diesel with him in order to put fire to the buildings on the island, but he had lost his lighter and was therefore not able to carry out this part of the plan. Only later did he find out that diesel is noncombustible.

The defendant then went back to the Cafe Building, where he found a mobile phone and called the police for the first time at approximately 18.00. He came through to the police and

26.09.2012

36

Utskrift fra Lovdata

stated that he was willing to give himself up. Contact was interrupted shortly afterwards. The defendant then walked on to Stoltenberg Rock and Bolsjevik Cove where many youths had gathered along the shore. Here he shot and killed eight youths during the period from approximately 18:01 to 18:08.

The persons killed at Stoltenberg Rock were: N058, born *.*.1992, was shot once in the back of the head. The gunshot injuries to the head led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N059, born *.*.1993, was shot three times. He was hit by two shots to the head and one to the back. The gunshot injuries have in combination led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N060, born *.*.1993, was shot three times in the head. The gunshot injuries to the head led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

The persons killed at Bolsjevik Cove were: N061, born *.*.1993, was shot once in the head. N061 died immediately of the gunshot injury to the head.

N062, born *.*.1992, was shot three times. She was hit by one shot to the throat/head, one shot to the back and one shot to the left hand. N062 died immediately of the gunshot injury to the throat/head.

N063, born *.*.1994, was shot three times. She was hit by one shot to the head, one shot to the left shoulder and one shot to the left breast. N063 died immediately of the gunshot injury to the head.

N064, born *.*.1992, was shot four times. He was hit by two shots to the back, one shot to the left buttock and one shot through the left wrist. N064 died rapidly of the gunshot injury to the chest.

N065, born *.*.1993, was shot three times. She was hit by two shots to the head and one shot to the back. N065 died immediately of the gunshot injury to the head and chest.

The defendant moved thereafter to the socalled Pumphouse. Here too, many persons had gathered, whom he tried to deceive by asking them if they had seen the perpetrator. The defendant said he was a police officer, that the perpetrator was still on the island and that he had a boat that could save them by taking them over to the mainland. Some of the youths moved forward toward the defendant and when one of the youths asked whether he could identify himself, the defendant started firing. From approximately 18:13, the defendant shot and killed 14 youths at the Pumphouse and in the lake water beyond.

The persons killed by the Pumphouse were: N066, born *.*.1992, was shot once in the head. N066 died almost immediately from the gunshot injuries to the head.

N067, born *.*.1995, was shot once in the abdomen. N067 died of haemorrhaging from the gunshot injuries to the abdomen. She lost consciousness within a minute and died immediately thereafter.

N068, born *.*.1993, was shot three times. He was hit by one shot to the head, one to the back/chest and one to the left hip. The head injuries caused immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N069, born *.*.1994, was shot at least three times, possibly four times. He was hit by one shot to the left shoulder, one to the lower back and one to the left flank. He was also injured by a grazing shot to the left hand. The gunshot injuries to the throat caused rapid loss of consciousness. N069 died of the gunshot injuries to the chest and abdomen.

N070, born *.*.1990, was first shot in the right leg by the cafĂŠ. She was subsequently shot twice at the Pumphouse â&#x20AC;&#x201C; one shot to the head and one through the left hand. N070 died immediately of the gunshot injury to the head.

N071, born *.*.1995, was shot twice. He was hit by one shot to the occiput and one to the back. The gunshot injuries to the head and throat led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N072, born *.*.1991, was shot once in the head. N072 died immediately of the gunshot injury to the head.

26.09.2012

37

Utskrift fra Lovdata

N073, born *.*.1992, was shot once in the head. N073 died immediately of the gunshot injury to the head.

N074, born *.*.1991, was shot three times. She was hit by one shot to the occiput, one grazing shot to the face where a projectile fragment entered the thoracic cavity, and one shot to the left elbow. The head injury caused immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N075, born *.*.1995, was shot three times. He was hit by two shots to the head. He was also wounded in the right upper arm. N075 died immediately of the gunshot wounds to the head.

N076, born *.*.1989, was shot four times. He was hit by one shot to the back, one to the neck, a grazing shot to the neck and another grazing shot to right side of the occiput. The shot to the neck led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N077, born *.*.1993, was shot three times. She was hit by one shot to the throat, one to the back and one to the right buttock. The gunshot injuries to the head and chest led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N078, born *.*.1983, was at the water's edge below the Pumphouse. He was shot twice in the head. The gunshot injuries to the head led to immediate loss of consciousness and death.

N079, born *.*.1992, was shot once in the head. The gunshot injury to the head led to immediate loss of consciousness and fairly rapid death.

From the Pumphouse, the defendant moved to the West Point where he fired at people and boats. At approximately 18:24 he called and spoke to the police for the last time. During this call as well, the defendant stated that he was willing to give himself up.

The defendant then walked to the South Point of Utøya where many youths had gathered.

Some were hiding in the bushes, whereas others were preparing to swim over to the mainland. The defendant shot and killed five youths at the water's edge at approximately 18:30.

These persons were killed at the water's edge at the South Point: N080, born *.*.1988, was shot twice in the back. N080 died of the gunshot injuries to the back. It took several minutes before she died.

N081, born *.*.was shot three, possibly four times. He was hit by one shot to the head and one through the throat. Two shots went through the right arm and hand. One of the shots travelled further into the head. N081 died immediately of the gunshot injuries to the head.

N082, born *.*.1995, was shot once in the head. The gunshot injury to the head led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N083, born *.*.1991, was shot at least once. He was hit by one shot to the shoulder which continued into the head. The other gunshot wound stemmed from a grazing shot to the right hand and could have been caused by the shot to the shoulder. The gunshot injuries to the head and throat led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

N084, born *.*.1994, was shot three times. She was hit by one shot to the neck, one to the chest and one to the left buttock. N084 died of the gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

The head shot led to immediate loss of consciousness and rapid death.

From the South Point, the defendant walked toward the Schoolhouse where he was arrested by the police at 18:34.

Two persons died while trying to escape from the defendant's shots.

N085, born *.*.1994, was among the persons fired at outside the South Point the first time the defendant was there at approximately 17:40. N085 was not hit, but drowned while attempting to escape from the island by swimming away. He was found outside the South Point at a depth of 6 metres. His respiratory tract was filled with foam and he had heavily inflated lungs. He had no physical injuries.

N086, born *.*.1994, died as a result of a fall while attempting to escape between approximately 17:37 and 18:01. He fell off a cliff at the island's West Point and down into the water. He sustained, inter alia, a fractured cranium, pelvic fracture, tear in the right lung and spleen and comprehensive haemorrhaging in the right thoracic cavity. The cause of death is not clear. The fall injuries have not caused immediate death. Changes in his respiratory tract could indicate drowning.

26.09.2012

38

Utskrift fra Lovdata

4.2.3 Attempted murders In additions to those murdered, altogether 33 persons were hit and injured by gunshots.

The defendant stated in court that it had been his intention to kill all present on Utøya. That this was indeed the intention of the defendant is also clear from the statements of the injured and other witnesses who described his determined conduct during the shooting. With a couple of exceptions, the defendant shot at every person he saw.

The injured parties testified in court, with the exception of N091 and N114. The descriptions below of how each person was injured, and the extent of the injuries, are based upon the testimonies and medical certificates of the injured parties. As regards the injuries, the Court limits itself to accounting for the number of gunshot injuries and the physical consequences of these injuries. The Court also includes certain brief descriptions of the defendant, provided by the injured parties. Selfevidently, many of the aggrieved parties have also had considerable psychological reactions following the terrorist act. We refer to the general discussion on this matter in section 4.1.1.

The following persons were shot and injured by the defendant: N087 was born on *.*.1991. N087 stated that she was in a tent at the tent camp when she understood somebody was shooting on Utøya. She and her girlfriend ran out. While fleeing the perpetrator, she was shot in the right forearm. She heard many shots; there was panic and chaos around her. N087 and her girlfriend were able to swim to the mainland. The water was icy cold, and she lost the feeling in her legs and arms. On the mainland side, she was received by ambulance personnel, and was quickly evacuated to an Esso gas station nearby.

Several projectile fragments in the arm had to be surgically removed. N087 has been on medical leave since February this year, and is still receiving treatment.

N088 was born on *.*.1991. N088, like N087, was at the tent camp when he heard gunshots. A group of youngsters came running, shouting that he must run. He ran into the forest. He turned around and saw an armed man in uniform emerge from the Cafe Building.

The man stood at the top of the hill, and it seemed as if he was trying to gain an overview of what was going on. He did not talk to anybody, he just stood there looking. Suddenly he raised the gun at N088 and the others who were with him. N088 was hit once in the back, near the right shoulder blade. He hid under a tree and was able to call the emergency hotline 113. He was advised what to do, and was later called by the police. The gunshot injury made it very difficult to breathe, and he believes he fainted several times while lying under the tree.

The gunshot caused fraction injuries to the shoulder blade and in the 3rd and 4th rib. He got numerous projectile fragments in the body, and the right lung was damaged. N088 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July until 1 August 2011. His lung function has been somewhat reduced by the gunshot injury.

N089 was born on *.*.1992. N089 explained that she was sitting on the outdoor stage near the tent camp when she heard bangs. Many persons came running, saying there was a man firing shots. A man in a police uniform came walking calmly down the path. At that point in time, N089 was standing together with between 30 and 50 persons at the end of the tent camp. When several in that group walked towards the defendant, he lifted the rifle and fired shots. N089 and the others ran into the forest. She said that she heard many shots and that bullets passed just above her head. While fleeing she was hit by a bullet fragment in her right thigh, but the injury was not a serious one. She did not notice that she had been hit and continued running, first towards Lovers' Path, then changing direction towards the South Point. From there she started swimming together with several others. When they had reached a certain distance from the shore, she saw the defendant coming down to the South Point.

The defendant shouted in a loud voice that they should stop and return. She saw him aiming at people standing there and she saw them fall. While N089 was swimming she had an asthma attack, which made it very difficult for her to breathe and consequently very difficult to swim. She vomited several times while swimming. After about one hour in the water she was picked up by a rowboat between 50 and 100 metres from the mainland and brought into safety.

26.09.2012

39

Utskrift fra Lovdata

After the swim, N089 suffered an inflammation in her hip and knee, obliging her to use crutches for one month. She still has pains in her hip, knee and thigh.

N090 was born on *.*.1994. She was at the tent camp when the defendant landed on Utøya. While she was fleeing the shooting, she was shot at and hit by several bullet fragments in her left lower leg. N090 ran to the South Point, where she undressed and started swimming. Since the water was cold she changed her mind and swam back to shore. She then ran to the pier below the Main Building, where some persons were trying to start the vessel Reiulf. N090 jumped into the water again and was pulled on board the boat. She saw a man in a police uniform by the pier, but she did not immediately understand that it was the perpetrator. There were some who shouted that he was the perpetrator. The defendant fired shots at them and several shots hit the boat. The defendant seemed calm and in no hurry.

N090 was admitted to Asker and BĂŚrum Hospital for about 24 hours, where she underwent surgical treatment with wound toilet and removal of several fragments. She still has splinters in her lower leg and it hurts if she uses her leg too much.

N091 was born on *.*.1996. N091 did not give evidence in court. Her police statement relates that she was at the tent camp when she realised shots were being fired on the island.

While she was fleeing the place, she was shot at and hit in her right shoulder and upper arm.

She was also shot in the right side of abdomen, either simultaneously or somewhat later. The shot to the shoulder caused fracturing of the shoulder blade and damage to the right lung.

The shot to the abdomen penetrated the subcutis and fatty tissue.

N091 underwent hospital treatment for approximately 12 days from 22 July 2011 in, inter alia, Oslo University Hospital, where she underwent surgery involving extensive wound toilet. According to a medical certificate of 22 February 2012, the damage to the shoulder area may entail permanent injury.

N092 was born on *.*.1995. N092 was at the tent camp when she was shot while fleeing and she was hit in her right forearm. The shot went through the arm. She stated that it felt like being hit with a bat. She ran to the Schoolhouse and was taken into a bedroom, where her wounds were examined by a person from Norwegian People's Aid. She hid under the bed. After a while, the defendant came over to the Schoolhouse and fired shots through the window. Several of those present screamed in fear. N092 thought the defendant was inside the Schoolhouse and that he would enter the bedroom. She heard the shots gradually become more distant.

N092 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July 2011, where she underwent surgery including wound cleansing. She was then transferred to a local hospital.

N093 was born on *.*.1994. She was sitting inside the tent with two girlfriends when somebody shouted that they had to get out. They walked down to a group that had gathered at the end of the tent camp. Suddenly everybody started to run. Chaos ensued, and several tripped over tent ropes. She did not see the defendant. N093 was shot while fleeing and she was shot in her left lower leg, but no serious injury was caused. She ran to the South Point, where she took off some clothes and started swimming. When she had come about 100 metres away from the beach she heard shots and saw a figure dressed in dark clothes. It looked like he shot at a person on the beach. N093 was picked up by a boat and she received help when she was let off on the mainland.

N094 was born on *.*.1989. She explained that she was on the kitchen team and that she was in the Cafe Building doing dishes when she heard a bang. She sought refuge in the Little Hall, where she and several others hid behind a piano. N094 was shot at least four times. The shots first hit her hands, then her jaw and then her chest. N094 explained that she tried to keep her jaw in place. She did not see the defendant, but she now knows that he stood over the piano while he was shooting. He then moved in behind the piano and continued firing at those lying there. N094 got up and ran out of the building. There she collapsed. She was bleeding profusely from her wounds and tried to stop the bleeding while crying out for help.

Many ran past her, looking scared. V002 came over to her and managed to carry her over to the skateboard ramp between the Cafe Building and the Pumphouse. There her wounds were dressed and the haemorrhages stopped.

N094 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital and she underwent surgical treatment of

26.09.2012

40

Utskrift fra Lovdata

the jaw fracture and the wounds. She underwent surgery a total of five times and she was discharged from the hospital on 19 August 2011.

N095 was born on *.*.1994. She was in the Little Hall in the Cafe Building when she was shot twice. One shot hit her left knee and one shot hit her left shoulder. N095 explained that many shots were fired in quick succession. Several persons were shot, and one of them fell on top of N095. She lay with her eyes closed. The shooting stopped and she heard the defendant reload. He then fired controlled single shots. N095 did not hear the defendant say anything in the Little Hall. When the defendant had gone out, she heard shouts but did not understand the words. She first thought there were several perpetrators shouting messages to each other, but she has later thought that they were battle cries.

The shot that hit N095 in the knee entered on the inside, continued through fat/muscles in the thigh and lodged under the skin on the outside of the thigh. The shot to the shoulder did not cause serious injuries. She was admitted to Asker and BĂŚrum Hospital on 22 July 2011, where she underwent surgical treatment for her leg injury and removal of the projectile. The following day, N095 was transferred to Telemark Hospital for further treatment. She was discharged on 30 July 2011.

N096 was born on *.*.1993. He was in the Little Hall in the Cafe Building, where he was shot once in the left foot and once in the arm. The defendant fired many quick shots at the many persons who were in the Little Hall. According to N096, the defendant reloaded, and several of those who were in the same place as N096 tried to hide behind a piano and a table.

The defendant then fired shots at them. N096 let himself fall down and played dead. A friend of his, N034, fell partially on top of N096. So did N033. Both N034 and N033 were shot several times in the body before the defendant shot them in the head, whereupon they died.

After the defendant had shot N034, he reloaded very calmly. Then he entered the Big Hall, where he continued shooting.

The shot that hit N096 in the foot, entered on the outside, fractured bones in the metatarsus and wound up in the heel bone. He was admitted to Asker and BĂŚrum Hospital on 22 July 2011, where he underwent surgical treatment with wound toilet and removal of a projectile. The following day, N096 was transferred to Ă&#x2DC;stfold Hospital for further treatment, where he was discharged on 2 August 2011. He has undergone a total of four operations. N096 still has a lot of pain in his foot, and he takes painkillers almost every day.

N097 was born on *.*.1991. N097 was in the Little Hall in the Cafe Building when he saw the defendant arriving, walking calmly up the stairs to the Cafe Building. According to N097, the defendant looked confused and his face seemed contorted with a mixture of anger and joy. N097 was in the Little Hall with his female friend N029. When the defendant entered the room, N097 pulled N029 down to the floor, so that she lay beside him. She was killed.

N097 was shot once in his face with the pistol. The shot entered the left side of the face, passing through the palate and exiting under the right eye, causing, inter alia, crush injuries in the eye socket and injury to the optic nerve. The projectile was millimetres away from the main artery. After some critical hours, he was taken to Oslo University Hospital by helicopter, where he underwent several operations before being discharged on 1 August 2011. He explained that the injury in the palate now has healed completely, but that parts of his face are still numb. He has only 10 percent vision left on his right eye, and he sometimes has double vision. He has been on a 90 percent sick leave since 22 July 2011.

N098 was born on *.*.1990. N098 explained that she was in the doorway between the Little Hall and the corridor of the Cafe Building when she was shot at. She was hit by one shot to her right knee. N098 has stated that after she was hit, she ran over to the Dining Hall, where she jumped out the window. She then ran to the Pumphouse, where two other persons dressed her wound. N098 tried to run on, but she did not manage because of the gunshot injury to her leg. According to N098's statement, she was then carried some distance by others on the island. However, the sound of shots was drawing closer and she asked the others to run. As for herself, she lay down on the ground and played dead. She saw the defendant five to ten metres from where she lay, but the defendant continued walking without doing any more to her. After a while, N098 was carried on board a boat that arrived,

26.09.2012

41

Utskrift fra Lovdata

and she was evacuated together with several others.

The shot that hit N098, entered on the outside of the knee, passed through the femur and fractured it. N098 was admitted to Ringerike Hospital, where the femoral fracture was stabilised. The following day she was transferred to Ă&#x2DC;stfold Hospital, where she underwent surgical interventions including removal of the projectile, wound toilet and treatment of the femoral fracture. She was discharged on 31 July 2011. She is to undergo another surgery in the autumn of 2012 to remove a plate in her leg.

N099 was born on *.*.1992. N099 has explained that he was in the Big Hall in the Cafe Building when he was shot. Next, he fled the building. He was unaware that he had been shot until he met someone who told him so. Because of the gunshot injuries it became increasingly difficult to walk, but he received help from three other persons and he ended up at the South Point. N099 has stated that while he was sitting there, the defendant came and asked with a calm, kind voice: ÂŤHave you seen him?Âť N099 perceived this as the defendant trying to trick them into believing that he was a police officer looking for the perpetrator.

N099 chose to hurl himself into the water. He does not know how to swim, but he managed to move 2 or 3 metres away under water. He saw projectiles strike around him.

When he surfaced he saw blood around him, and he believes he was hit by bullets while he was in the water. He managed to get over to a rock, where he hid until he was saved.

N099 was hit in both thighs and the right ankle. The bullets caused gunshot wounds, and N099 was admitted to Ringerike Hospital from 22 to 25 July 2011. He underwent surgery twice, were soft tissue and a projectile fragment were removed from his right thigh and the gunshot wounds were cleaned and sutured.

N100 was born on *.*.1992. N100 explained that after the information meeting concerning the explosion in the Government District, she sat down in a corner of the Big Hall to charge her mobile phone. She sat together with N035 and N036. N100 spotted the defendant, who shot at them. All three were hit. N035 and N036 were killed. N100 was shot in the neck, left upper arm and left little finger. As a consequence of the shots she was thrown backwards. N100 has testified that N036 ended up lying on top of her, and that she understood that N036 was dead.

The shot to the throat caused the fracturing of the 3rd and 4th cervical vertebrae and damage to the spinal cord, as well as extensive tissue damage. The shot to the upper arm led to extensive fracture injuries. She was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July, where she was operated on several times for fixation of the cervical fracture, frame fixation of the left upper arm and partial amputation of the left little finger, in addition to wound toilet. N100 was transferred to St. Olav's Hospital on 15 August, where she was hospitalised until 30 November 2011. Due to the internal fixation of the neck with a titanium plate, her throat is more constricted. She has sustained permanent damage to the spinal cord and permanent nerve damage in the hand. She suffers from spasms in the legs and in one arm.

She can not run. If she sits down for a while, she has difficulty walking because the muscles tighten.

N101 was born *.*.1994. N101 stated that she was on Lovers' Path and was shot once in the left side of the head. N101 was the only one in a group of eleven people who survived.

They had lain down next to each another and played dead. N101 was holding the hand of her best friend N044 when the defendant came and shot them one by one. N101 explained that she noticed that her friend was killed. After a while, N101 managed to drag herself into the forest. There she met V003, who helped her on her way. Finally, they reached the socalled Rock Tent, which they entered after V003 had checked that it was empty. V003 went off to find some bandages to dress N101's wounds with. N101 heard shots while V003 was gone and for a while she thought that V003 had been killed. However, V003 returned with bandages and dressed N101's wounds. N101 explained that she then saw some dark shoes and dark trousers pass by outside the tent and that she recognised the defendant's legs. After a while a policeman entered the tent. N101 saw that the uniform was different, but nevertheless thought they would be killed. The policeman reassured them. He stepped outside and returned with another policeman plus an injured boy. They had to wait in the tent for a while because the area had not been secured.

26.09.2012

42

Utskrift fra Lovdata

The shot that hit N101 caused scalp lesions and a cerebral haemorrhage. N101 was hospitalised in Ringerike Hospital, Oslo University Hospital and Vestfold Hospital from 22 to 25 July 2011.

N102 was born *.*.1993. N102 stated that she was standing by the Toilet and Shower Block when somebody came running past and said that there was shooting on the island.

N102 then ran along Lovers' Path and tried to hide on a cliff ledge below the path. She was nevertheless shot by the defendant, at least once. As a result of the shot or shots, she was thrown off the ledge where she was lying. N102 explained that she hyperventilated and that it felt as if her body was swelling up. Her legs did not obey her, but she managed to pull herself down to some bushes, after which she fell down into the water. Gradually, she developed severe hypothermia, felt nauseous and vomited blood. She was finally helped out of the water and was later transported off the island.

One shot entered the lower back, damaging, inter alia, the left kidney and the pancreas tail, colon and spleen. She was initially admitted and operated on in Drammen Hospital, where, inter alia, the left kidney was removed and the hole in the colon repaired. She was thereafter transferred to Oslo University Hospital on 24 July for new operations. In addition to the abovementioned abdominal injuries, she sustained extensive injuries to the nerve roots of the lumbar back, involving paralysis of musculature, especially in the left thigh.

Following discharge on 18 August, N102 was transferred to Sunnaas Hospital for further treatment. She still uses crutches and has strong pains in the left leg.

N103 was born *.*.1993. Hanssen stated that he and his 14-year old brother were in the tent camp when they realised that shots were being fired on Utøya Island. They ran off and hid under a cliff ledge below Lovers' Path. There were about ten people there when they first arrived, but more kept coming. N103 was shot and he fell down to the edge of the water.

While he was lying there, he was shot again. His brother managed to get away without being shot.

N103 was hit by five shots – in the head, left shoulder region, left hand, thigh and right forearm. The shot to the head entered the right side and caused extensive injuries, involving an open cranial fracture and damaged brain tissue, in addition to damage to the right eye and adjacent bone structure. He has lost vision in his right eye and uses an ocular prosthesis. The shot to the shoulder region shattered the shoulder joint and damaged the nerves leading into the left arm. The shot to the left hand caused extensive injuries and resulted in the amputation of three fingers. N103 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July 2011, where he underwent intensive treatment and was operated on numerous times before being transferred to Sunnaas Hospital on 15 August 2011 for further treatment.

N104 was born *.*.1992. N104 stated that she was on her way to the Cafe Building when she heard shots. First she hid inside a tent and then ran over to the «Troms County camp».

Those who had gathered there were very uncertain about what was happening, so she ran off into the forest. There she met N091 who had been shot. While she was pulling N091 along, she saw N027 lying on the ground. He was breathing but she was not able to establish contact with him. She met V004, who then took care of N091. N104 then went to hide under the cliff ledge near Lovers' Path. While she was lying there, she swapped places with V005.

As N104 looked up, she saw the defendant. He shot her in the stomach. N104 explained that it felt as if the stomach exploded. She moved towards the edge of the water and was then shot in the arm. Nevertheless, she managed to move forward and hid sitting down against the cliff at the water's edge.

N104 was hit in the stomach, right elbow/upper arm, right knee region and right part of the thoracic wall. The shot to the stomach damaged, inter alia, the colon, small intestine and abdominal wall. The shot to the elbow/upper arm caused extensive soft tissue damage and the shot to the knee damaged tissue, ligaments and the joint capsule. She was initially admitted to and underwent emergency surgery at Ringerike Hospital, where, inter alia, a portion of the colon was removed. She was thereafter transferred to Oslo University Hospital on 23 July 2011, where she underwent several operations to, inter alia, remove the right part of the colon and a portion of the small intestine. Upon discharge on 22 August, N104 was transferred to the University Hospital of North Norway, where she was hospitalised until 29

26.09.2012

43

Utskrift fra Lovdata

August 2011.

N105 was born *.*.1993. N105 stated that he saw the defendant walk by the Cafe Building and that the defendant shot a person three times. N105 ran away with N051 and V006. They were hiding at the edge of the water below Lovers' Path.

N105 was shot at and was hit in the right flank. A smaller projectile fragment entered the upper right part of the stomach, without causing serious injuries.

N106 was born *.*.1994. She stated that she was on Utøya Island with her 14-months younger sister, N037. Her sister was killed. N106 was in the tent at the tent camp when she heard gunshots. She ran down to the cliff below Lovers' Path, where she was shot twice.

N106 was shot once in the stomach and also sustained a 10-cm long wound to the inside of her right upper arm. She sustained injuries to the right lung and below the right should blade, fracturing of two ribs and a number of projectile fragments in the thoracic wall and flank on the right side. N106 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July, where she was operated on seven times and was discharged on 10 August 2011. She still has pains in the forearm.

N107 was born *.*.1996. N107 stated that she was with some other people from Troms County in the tent camp when they heard gunshots. N107 too ran to the cliff below Lovers' Path. Initially, she was lying under a ledge, but when the gunshots came nearer, she inched down towards the edge of the water. There she was shot a total of four or five times.

N107 was hit in the abdomen, throat region and both thighs. The shot to the abdomen led to massive bleeding, and parts of the small intestine and colon later had to be removed. The shot to the throat necessitated the removal of parts of the musculature between the shoulder and back and she had to have skin grafts. The gunshot injuries to the thighs necessitated the removal of muscle mass, 400 grams from the left thigh and 200 grams from the right. She was hospitalised in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July to 16 August and was operated on six times. N107 was thereafter transferred to the University Hospital of North Norway from 26 August to 13 September for further treatment.

N108 was born *.*.1994. N108 stated that she was standing in front of the Cafe Building, where she met a friend, when she heard several bangs. They ran to Lovers' Path, where N108 then hid under the cliff ledge below the path. She was shot at least twice.

The gunshots entered the right arm causing a relatively large open wound on the forearm and two wounds on the upper arm. N108 was hospitalised in Ringerike Hospital from 22 to 24 July 2011, where she underwent surgical treatment, involving, inter alia, wound toilet and the removal of projectile fragments. She was thereafter transferred to the University Hospital of North Norway, where she was hospitalised for two weeks.

N109 was born *.*.1992. N109 explained that he was in the barn near the Main Building when he heard bangs and shouting outside. He went outside and saw one person being shot.

N109 then ran away along with several others. He turned around and saw the defendant continue forward walking calmly and controlled. N109 ran to the tent camp, where several others from Troms AUF were standing around. N109 then saw the defendant shoot one person in a guard's uniform. Those who were standing there panicked, and N109 ran into the forest and up to Lovers' Path. He heard numerous gunshots which kept coming closer. He saw a girl who was shot several times in the back. He realised that the person he saw wearing a police uniform was the perpetrator. N109 ran until he passed out and woke up at the edge of the water.

N109 was shot once below the left knee cap. As a result of the fall, he also sustained a fracture of the left eye socket. The gunshot gave rise to an open fracture of the tibia, extensive soft tissue damage and permanent nerve damage in the lower leg. He was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July where he underwent surgery to, inter alia, mount an external fixation to stabilise the tibia fracture. On the following day, N109 was transferred to the University Hospital of North Norway, where he underwent surgery to treat the eye socket injury, fracture injuries in the leg and wound toilet.

N110 was born *.*.1995. N110 stated that she was in the Cafe Building when she heard bangs. She ran to the Pumphouse and threw herself into the water, where she was shot once in the right part of the chest. The gunshot entered the right thoracic cavity and penetrated the

26.09.2012

44

Utskrift fra Lovdata

lung.

N110 was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July 2011, where an accumulation of air and blood in the thoracic cavity was ascertained. She was thereafter transferred to Oslo University Hospital, where she underwent surgery to treat the wounds in the chest, as well as to remove foreign bodies from the face. N110 was discharged on 4 August 2011. She has spontaneous chest pains. The projectile is too close to the spinal cord to be removed and is consequently still lodged in the chest. She has reduced lung capacity.

N111 was born on *.*.1991. N111 stated that he was in the Cafe Building when he heard gunshots. He ran outside, down a slope, and over to the Pumphouse. There he hid together with several other people. The defendant came towards them, saying he was from the police, and that the perpetrator had not been caught, and that a boat was waiting at the pier to evacuate them. N111 and others asked the defendant to show his badge. According to N111, no more than one minute passed before the defendant started shooting.

N111 was shot three times, in the right and left thighs and the left part of the scrotum.

The gunshots caused three major wounds, involving extensive tissue damage. He was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July and transferred to Stavanger University Hospital on the following day. N111 was operated on several times, inter alia, to remove projectile fragments, for wound toilet and skin transplants, prior to discharge on 17 August 2011.

N112 was born on *.*.1990. N112 stated that he was in the Cafe Building when he heard gunshots. He saw through the windows that people were running towards the tent camp, and that one person was shot and fell down. N112 saw the defendant walk calmly. When shots were fired at the windows, N112 ran outside and ended up at the Pumphouse with others.

The defendant came there and said he was from the police and that boats would arrive to evacuate them. N112 doubted whether the defendant was a police officer, due to what he had seen from the Cafe Building. Some people asked the defendant to show his badge. One person, who walked towards the defendant, was shot. He also saw the defendant shooting other people in the head. N112 tried to hide and to protect himself by putting his arms over his head, but was shot twice. The defendant then walked a little bit away, but soon returned.

N112 was breathing hard, so the defendant understood that he was alive. He was then shot for the third time. After that he held his breath for the defendant to believe that he was dead.

Once the defendant had left, N112 called for help. Nobody responded; all around him were dead.

The gunshots hit N112 in the left shoulder, left thigh and in the abdomen. The shot injuries in the shoulder and thigh necessitated the subsequent amputation of the arm and leg.

The gunshot to the abdomen caused damage to the stomach, liver, left lung and heart. N112 was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July, where he underwent emergency lifesaving treatment, and was then transferred to Oslo University Hospital the same night. There, he underwent a series of operations before being transferred to Sunnaas Hospital on 11 October 2011 for further treatment.

N113 was born on *.*.1995. N113 stated that he was in the dining hall of the Cafe Building when he heard gunshots. Together with others, he ran outside and down the slope behind the Cafe Building. He first hid near the Pumphouse, before he waded along the water's edge in a group of about 30 people over to the West Point. N113 then curled up in a ball on the ground, only partially hidden. He heard a loud bang and heard a sharp zing in his head. He saw the water turn red around him. The projectile had struck a rock next to him, and N113 was hit by a number of projectile fragments, inter alia, in the face, thigh, and knee. He was later taken away by a boat that arrived on the site.

N113 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 to 27 July 2011, where he underwent surgical removal of some 150 fragments from the face.

N114 was born on *.*.1996. N114 did not testify in court. His statement to the police reads that he was in the vicinity of the West Point. He was shot once in the left flank.

According to the medical certificate that was read out, the gunshot caused lesions and projectile fragments in the pelvic area. N114 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July 2011 and underwent several wound cleansing procedures under general anaesthesia.

N115 was born on *.*.1989. N115 explained that he walked towards the Cafe Building.

26.09.2012

45

Utskrift fra Lovdata

While standing there, he heard bangs, but he did not understand they were gunshots. When he saw several youth running, he walked towards the tent camp along the Cafe Building.

N115 saw the defendant come walking between the kiosk and the forest. A girl walked towards the defendant, who raised his pistol and shot her. She fell, and N115 ran through the tent camp and into the forest. They were about 50 to 60 people running. Many of those who ran, stumbled in the chaos, and the bullets whizzed past them. N115 arrived at the South Point, where he started to swim. He was swimming with clothes and hiking boots on, and realized that he would not be able to swim away from Utøya. Hence, he started to swim back, but had trouble staying afloat. Since the water was shallow a long way out, he touched bottom and was able to walk up. While standing in water up to the hips, the defendant came walking and stopped 5–6 meters away from N115. The defendant stood on a rock on the water's edge while looking out on the water, shouting that he was going to kill them all. His face turned red while shouting, and his voice cracked. The defendant shot at those who were swimming. The projectiles made water columns when hitting the surface. The defendant turned to N115, who shouted for him not to shoot. The defendant pointed his rifle at N115, but just as it seemed that he was going to shoot, the defendant turned around and walked away. He doesn't know why the defendant did not shoot him. N115 was able to come ashore and found his mobile phone. He got into contact with the police at 17:59, and was told to stay hidden, and that the police were on their way. N115 lay on the ground with a jacket covering him when the defendant returned, shot all around, and N115 was hit.

N115 was shot once with the pistol or rifle in the left shoulder. He was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July 2011 and underwent surgery to remove, inter alia , damaged tissue and metal fragments. He was transferred to Telemark Hospital on 24 July, where he underwent several operations. N115 was discharged at the beginning of August 2011.

N116 was born on *.*.1994. N116 was in the Cafe Building when she heard gunshots.

She was standing by a window in the Big Hall and watched the defendant walk by outside.

She stated that he stopped and turned around. She was not certain whether he aimed and shot, or whether he only pointed [the weapon]. Chaos broke out in the Big Hall. N116 got out and ran down a steep slope. She ran to the Pumphouse, where she and several others hid in the bushes. A group of young people arrive, among them N116's best friend N084. They ran together on to the South Point. The defendant came and asked: «Have you seen him, has he been around here?» The defendant seemed very determined and as if he was in no hurry.

When he talked to them, he did not seem to have any interest in hearing the replies. Then the defendant started to shoot. N116 was shot three times; in the right forearm, right shoulder and right part of the face. She looked over at N084 and understood that she was dead.

The shot to the face entered the jaw bone, fracturing the angle of the lower jaw. The shot to the forearm gave rise, inter alia, to an open crush fracture of both bone shafts and extensive soft tissue damage, and the arm had to be amputated at the elbow. The shot to the shoulder caused extensive soft tissue damage and crush fracturing of the joint capsule of the humerus. N116 was admitted to Ringerike Hospital on 22 July and thereafter transferred to Oslo University Hospital, where she was hospitalised until 19 August 2011.

N117 was born on *.*.1993. N117 explained that she was in the Big Hall when the shooting started on Utøya. She then ran outside and down a slope in the direction of the Pumphouse. N117 suffers from asthma and got difficulties breathing. Several people started to swim from the Pumphouse, but N117 and the people she was standing with, decided not to swim for fear of drowning. They tried to comfort each other. One of the other persons standing there was N080, who was later killed at the water's edge at the South Point. She thinks she sat there for about one hour. When they heard the gunshots approaching, the group started to run along the Lovers' Path south towards the Naked Point and the South Point. They passed a group of approximately ten dead bodies that lay near a fence. Several times during this run she had asthma attacks, and they stopped at the South Point for fear that she would suffer more attacks. They sat down near the water's edge, and N117 saw a man, dressed in black, come towards them. He came around the tree she lay up against, and shot her in the arm and the face.

The shot to the face entered through the left cheek, causing several fractures of the

26.09.2012

46

Utskrift fra Lovdata

head/facial skeleton and projectile fragments penetrated into the brain. N117 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July, where she underwent two operations before being transferred to Sunnaas Hospital on 19 August for further treatment.

N118 was born *.*.1993. N118 explained that she was in the Big Hall when she heard several shots. She ran with other people out on the Lovers' Path and stopped in the slope below the Lovers' Path. She heard shots and saw several persons get hit. She ran around the Lovers' Path with a friend to hide. She finally ended up at the South Point, where she sat down with other people in some bushes. A small boy around the age of ten was there, terrified and screaming. She tried to calm him down. The defendant arrived, and the group scattered. N118 was shot in the right thigh, and then ran into the water. While in the water, she saw the defendant talk to the little boy.

The gunshot caused a wound and the accumulation of projectile fragments in the thigh.

N118 was admitted to Oslo University Hospital on 22 July 2011 and underwent surgery, involving wound treatment and wound toilet. On the following day, she was transferred to Østfold Hospital, where she underwent two further operations in the thigh, involving wound toilet, removal of projectile fragments and skin grafting.

N119 was born *.*.1993. N119 explained that after having been to the information meeting in the Big Hall, she heard gunshots. When somebody called out that they should run, she and a girlfriend ran to the Pumphouse. She sat there with others and they tried to comfort each other. She then ran on to the South Point with several others. On the Lovers' Path, she passed several dead people lying next to each other. At the South Point, she hid by some trees. A little boy screamed that his daddy was killed. She saw the defendant and thought that the police had arrived. Then she felt an explosion in her stomach.

N119 was shot once in the left flank. The projectile entered the abdomen, causing extensive damage to internal organs, inter alia, the stomach, colon and one kidney. The kidney and parts of the colon had to be removed. N119 was hospitalized in Oslo University Hospital from 22 July to 12 August 2011, where she was operated on several times.

It follows from the presentation above that the defendant in objective terms has acted as described in counts I and II of the indictment. The Court shall now proceed to discuss the subjective requirements for punishment.

5. The Penal Code, section 147a first subsection a) and b) Count I of the indictment regarding the bomb in the Government District concerns the violation of the Penal Code, section 147a first subsection a) and b). Count II of the indictment regarding Utøya concerns the violation of the Penal Code, section 147a first subsection b).

The Penal Code, section 147a first subsection a) and b) is of the following tenor: «Any criminal act mentioned in section 148, 151 a, 151 b first subsection, cf. third subsection, 152 second subsection, 152 a second subsection, 152 b, 153 first to third subsections, 153 a, 154, 223 second subsection, 224, 225 first or second subsection, 231, cf.232, or 233, is considered to be a terrorist act and is punishable by imprisonment for a termnot exceeding 21 years when such act has been committed with the intention of a)seriously disrupting a function of fundamental importance to society, such as legislative, executive or judicial authority, power supply, safe supply of food or water, the bank or monetary system or emergency medical services or disease control, b)creating serious fear in a population, [...]»

In other words, an act of terrorism consist of a serious criminal act (the primary crime) in combination with an intention described in paras. a) or b), in the preparatory works [of the Penal Code] termed «terror intent», cf. Proposition to the Odelsting (Ot.prop.) No. 61 (2001–2002) page 35. (The intention described in para. c) is not of interest in the case at hand.) Terror intent means that the ensuing damage was intentional, or that the perpetrator considered it to be certain or preponderantly probable that the primary crime would create the effects mentioned in paras. a) or b). In the absence of any terror intent, the primary crimes will still be punishable, but under the ordinary provisions of the Penal Code.

26.09.2012

47

Utskrift fra Lovdata

The following is stated about the Penal Code, section 147a first subsection a) in Ot.prop.

No. 61 (2001–2002) page 93: «The central delimitation lies in that the function that is disrupted must be of fundamental importance to society, and in that the intent must encompass disrupting this function seriously. The criterion «seriously» establishes strict requirements in terms of duration, scope and effects of the disruptions. A number of elements must be included in the assessment; the size of the area affected by the disruption, how many persons are affected, how large the economic consequences of the act are, how lasting the effects are, and how vital the fundamental function that is disrupted is. Lesser disruptions are not sufficient.»

The following is stated about the Penal Code, section 147a first subsection b) in Ot.prop.

No. 61 (2001–2002) page 93: «Not all acts of terrorism are committed to seriously disrupt a function of fundamental importance to society, or to compel someone as mentioned in para. c). Some acts of terrorism are committed with the intention of creating serious fear in a population. For instance, the attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001 hardly fulfil the requirements under paras. a) or c), but there is no doubt that the attacks created serious fear in the American population, and that for this reason it is natural to characterise the attacks as acts of terrorism.

The expression «a population» entails that a population in another country as well as a population in Norway are protected; moreover, this requirement may be fulfilled even if not the entire population of a country is concerned, but only the population of a certain region. Even an ethnic minority may make up «a population» in a country or across national borders, like for instance the Sami population. The Ministry emphasises that it takes a lot to fulfil the requirements of para. b), cf. in particular the expression «serious fear». In the assessment of whether the criteria are fulfilled, it will be of significance, inter alia, whether the acts take place in one or in several places, how serious their consequences are or could have been, and what kind of objects the acts are aimed at.

Attacks against the supreme authorities of a country, or against national symbols, may lead to the requirement of serious fear in a population being fulfilled even if the acts are restricted to a geographical area of limited size.»

The indictment makes reference to premeditated murders (the Penal Code, section 233 first and second subsections) and premeditated attempted murders (the Penal Code, section 233 first and second subsections, cf. section 49), as well as explosion that may easily lead to extensive destruction or loss of human life (the Penal Code, section 148 first subsection first penalty alternative). Consequently, the violations of these provisions are cited as the primary crimes under the Penal Code, section147a.

In the Government District, the defendant killed eight persons by means of an explosion.

The defendant has admitted having made a bomb with a strong explosive force, having placed it inside the Government District and having lit the fuse. He has furthermore admitted that he did this in order to make the H-block collapse and to kill those inside the building.

According to the defendant's statement, all ministry employees were «legitimate targets».

The defendant furthermore stated that he in advance had accepted that also others than ministry employees would be killed.

There is no doubt that the defendant committed all the murders in the Government District with premeditation. The bomb blast was carefully planned and it was executed on the basis of a carefully considered decision. Against this background, the Court finds it has been proved that the guilt requirement pursuant to the Penal Code's section 233 first and second subsections and pursuant to section 148 first subsection first penalty alternative is fulfilled as regards count I of the indictment. Additionally, the Court finds that in assessing the question of punishment, to which the Court shall revert, it is clearly to be assumed that the crime has been committed under especially aggravating circumstances. It follows from the description under point 4.1.2 above that the murders were committed in a particularly

26.09.2012

48

Utskrift fra Lovdata

cruel way.

At Utøya, the defendant killed 69 persons. The murders at Utøya were planned as a continuation of the plan to blast the bomb in the Government District. According to the defendant's statement, several alternatives were considered. Utøya was chosen, inter alia, because the participants at the summer camp according to the defendant were «political activists» from the Labour Party's youth organisation, and consequently «legitimate targets».

Many of those who fell after having been hit by shots were then shot in the head at pointblank range. The defendant himself described this as «followup shots».

As regards N085 and N086, who died of drowning and fall injuries, respectively, there is no doubt that the defendant was aware that young people on Utøya would try to escape, and that he wanted the injuries they would sustain during their escape to lead to their death. The defendant has stated himself that his original plan was to scare as many as possible into swimming so that they would drown. He wanted, as he said, to use the water as a «weapon of mass destruction».

There is no doubt that the defendant committed all the murders at Utøya, including the murders on N085 and N086, with premeditation. The Court makes reference to the fact that the murders were thoroughly planned and were executed on the basis of a carefully considered decision. Against this background, the Court finds it has been proved that the guilt requirement pursuant to the Penal Code's section 233 first and second subsections is fulfilled as regards count II of the indictment. Additionally, the Court finds that in assessing the question of punishment, to which the Court shall revert, it is clearly to be assumed that the crime has been committed under especially aggravating circumstances. It follows from the description under point 4.2.2 above that the murders were committed in a particularly cruel way.

For the 9 persons who according to the indictment were injured in the Government District and the 33 persons who were injured at Utøya, the primary crime is attempted premeditated murder. Considering the bomb's explosive force and its location, it was evident to the defendant that anyone being in the vicinity of the bomb probably would be killed.

Those injured at Utøya were shot by the defendant. The defendant has stated that his intention was to kill as many as possible in the Government District and everyone at Utøya.

The explosion and the murders had been thoroughly planned and the attempted murders were executed on the basis of a carefully considered decision. The Court finds there is no doubt that all the attempted murders in the Government District and at Utøya were committed with premeditation. Also the attempted murders were executed in a particularly cruel way, and thus under especially aggravating circumstances.

The Penal Code's section 147a makes reference to section 233 concerning murder, but it does not make reference to section 49 concerning attempt. As to the attempted murders, which in counts I and II of the indictment form part of the two continuous crimes, several approaches are imaginable under criminal law. They may be considered attempted murders outside the scope of the terrorism provision (section 233, cf. section 49), as attempted terrorism (the Penal Code, section 147a, cf. section 49), or as the primary crime of consummate terrorism (the Penal Code, section 147a, cf. section 233, cf. 49). Whether the prosecuting authority considered the attempted murders as attempted terrorism or as a part of consummate terrorism, was not stated clearly in the indictment until it was amended at the trial. Following the amendment, the Court assumes that the indictment concerns consummate terrorism through, inter alia, attempted murders. During the trial, the defence had no remarks to such an application of the law.

In the opinion of the Court, also attempted murder can form part of the primary crimes of a terrorist act. It follows from the Penal Code, section 49 first subsection, that the punishability of an act, including violations of section 233, originates when there is an attempt. A «criminal act» as mentioned in the list in section 147a can thus be considered to exist also at the experimental stage. It is furthermore evident from section 147a third subsection that threats to commit such primary crimes as mentioned in the first subsection, depending on circumstances, may constitute the primary crime of an act of terrorism.

Considering this, the provision's internal congruity would become poor if the same were not

26.09.2012

49

Utskrift fra Lovdata

to apply to attempts at such crimes.

The Court shall not discuss the issue of the dividing line between a consummate act of terrorism on the basis of an attempted primary crime and an attempted act of terrorism as such. In any case, the case at hand concerns two consummate acts of terrorism that also consist of consummate murders. Notwithstanding this, the Court finds reason to note that the question of whether the attempted murders constitute independent primary crimes under section 147a, is of no significance to the question of guilt or the fixing of the sentence. The attempted murders will in any case be covered by the objective description of acts in the Penal Code, section 231, cf. section 232, to which reference is also made in section 147a, or they will also be aggravating circumstances in relation to the two acts of terrorism, which even without the attempted murders merit the maximum sentence under the law.

As regards the terror intent per se, the Court notes that the bomb explosion in the Government District caused serious disruptions of the function of the central government administration. The Court makes reference to the presentation in point 4.1.4 concerning the consequences for the central government administration. The defendant himself has stated that the aim of the terrorist attack was to strike at the central government administration and those working there. Against the above background, there is no doubt that the defendant detonated the bomb in order to seriously disrupt the function of the executive authority, cf. the Penal Code, section 147a first subsection a).

For both terrorist attacks, the defendant's intention was additionally to create serious fear in the population, cf. section 147a first subsection b). The defendant's plan was not only to kill members of the government, government employees and politically active youth. As described in point 3.1 concerning the defendant's ideology, he wanted, inter alia, to provoke reactions to radicalise the resistance against Muslim immigration in Norway and Europe. His means for reaching his political goals was extreme violence that affected many persons, and which through massive attention in the media also was intended to create serious fear in the population. There is no doubt that the defendant's intention in executing the terrorist attack on the Government District and on AUF's summer camp at Utøya also was to create fear in the population.

Against this background, the Court finds it has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant had such terror intent as described in the Penal Code, section 147a first subsection paras. a) and b) when attacking the Government District, and as described in para. b) when attacking at Utøya.

The defendant has submitted that he must be acquitted because of the principle of necessity, since he carried out «preventive» attacks to obtain his political goals, presented above in point 3.3.

As regards this submission, the Court briefly notes that neither the provisions of the Penal Code concerning necessity nor international human rights, which the defendant also invokes, allow the murder of government employees, politically active youth or others, to further extreme political goals. It is evident that this submission cannot be accepted.

The Court now proceeds to discuss the issue of the defendant's criminal sanity.

6. Criminal sanity 6.1 Section 44 of the Penal Code and the standard of proof By an amendment to the Act of 17 January No. 11, the rules in section 39 of the Penal Code concerning preventive supervision of, inter alia, criminally insane offenders were replaced by the rules for the transfer to compulsory mental health care and preventive detention. At the same time, section 44 of the Penal Code was given its current wording. The amendments entered into force on 1 January 2002. One of the amendments to section 44 was that the term «insane», which covered both psychoses and mental retardation to a high degree, was replaced by the term «psychotic». Section 44 of the Penal Code concerning criminal sanity now has the following wording: «A person who was psychotic or unconscious at the time of committing the act shall not be liable to a penalty.

26.09.2012

50

Utskrift fra Lovdata

The same applies to a person who at the time of committing the act was mentally retarded to a high degree.»

Being psychotic at the time of committing the act will unconditionally exempt the person from punishment, regardless of whether the offence is a result of the psychosis. This is often referred to as the medical principle.

In the preparatory works of the new provision, the Ministry describes the psychosis alternative under the then applicable law in Proposition to the Odelsting No. 87 (1993–1994) on page 22 as follows: «When considering the type of conditions to be considered as psychoses in the sense of the Penal Code, decisive importance must be attached to the way in which psychiatry at any given time defines the concept of psychosis. Today, psychiatrists agree that the principal characteristic of a psychosis is that the relationship to reality is significantly disturbed. The ability to react adequately to ordinary impressions and influences is lacking. The psychotic person often loses control over his thoughts, emotions and actions. Intellectual functions, on the contrary, may be intact. The dividing line between psychosis and other mental disorders is not sharp.»

In September 1989, the Special Sanctions Committee, a subcommittee of the Penal Code Committee, submitted its recommendation for an amendment of the criminal insanity rules and special sanctions. The recommendation was published in the Norwegian Official Report NOU 1990:5. The Committee proposed that the term «insanity» in section 44 of the Penal Code be replaced by the following wording: «A person who was psychotic at the time of committing the act and hence unable to make a realistic assessment of his relationship to the surrounding world shall not be liable to a penalty.»

The committee's further description of the psychosis term is found in NOU 1990:5 on page 38, and reads as follows: «The key criterion of a psychosis is that the ability to make a realistic assessment of one's relationship to the surrounding world is significantly impaired. There is general agreement on this criterion.

The offender's failing ability to make a realistic assessment of his relationship to the surrounding world must be relatively general, i.e. the impairment must include significant aspects of reality for the offender to be declared psychotic. On the other hand, an allencompassing failure of the ability to assess reality is not necessarily required. It should also be mentioned that a flawed perception of reality in a limited sector may, for the patient, assume such dimensions and have such consequences for his relationship to the surrounding world that it would be correct to assess him as psychotic.

In general terms, the crime itself should not be decisive for a psychosis diagnosis.»

The Ministry adopted the proposal to replace the term «insane» by the term «psychotic», but without the Special Sanctions Committee's suggested specification. In Proposition to the Odelsting No. 87 (1993–1994) on page 28, this is explained as follows: 2 «Deciding the question of exemption from punishment should depend as little as possible on the judge's own discretion. Conditions of criminal insanity must be described in a terminology that is recognized in psychiatric science. The term «insanity» in current legislation should therefore be replaced by «psychosis», which in the Ministry's view is the more precise and contemporary designation for the mental disorders concerned.

The Ministry does not support the proposal of the Special Sanctions Committee to specify in the text of the law what the concept of psychosis entails. It must be expected that persons who are to practice this provision, i.e. lawyers with the help of psychiatrists, are aware of the characteristics of a psychotic state. For them, any specification is unnecessary. However, people in general probably know little about the characteristics of a psychosis. But for them, a specification would, in the Ministry's

26.09.2012

51

Utskrift fra Lovdata

view, be confusing rather than informative, since it is conceivable that there are psychotic offenders who, to a greater or lesser degree, have the ability to make realistic assessments.»

The amendment to the wording of section 44 specifies that this part of the Code's rules on criminal insanity is based on the psychiatric psychosis conditions. The psychiatric diagnostic system, currently ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries and Causes of Death), with which Norway is obliged to comply under international agreements, will therefore be material when evaluating sanity. Nevertheless, the Court takes for a fact that the intention was never to amend the previous state of law concerning the correlation between the legal and psychiatric psychosis concepts.

In NOU 1990:5 page 42, the prevailing state of the law is described as follows: «When assessing whether a state is to be regarded as «insanity» in the sense of section 44 of the Penal Code, forensic psychiatrist are not formally bound by the guidelines set out in ICD 9. This involves an interpretation of the Penal Code's legal concepts. All the same, there is undoubtedly a close correlation between the general psychiatric diagnostic system and forensic psychiatry. Ordinarily, the use of concepts coincides.»

The Court does not need to consider the instances where the diagnostic psychosis term differs from the legal term, such as in the case of chronic psychoses caused by intoxication and medication. Nor will the Court consider whether the diagnostic and the legal diagnostic terms differ in the gray zone between psychoses and other mental disorders. As discussed below, none of the expert witnesses believe that the defendant was a borderline case, nor has the Court taken that as its basis. The question in our case is, in other words, whether the defendant was psychotic in a diagnostic – and consequently also in a legal – sense when he committed the acts.

The District Court will now discuss the degree of probability that must exist if the Court is to find the defendant criminally sane, the socalled standard of proof.

The standard of proof in the Penal Code is not statutory but is deduced from the Supreme Court's practice. As far as the evidentiary strength is concerned, the District Court relies on the Supreme Court judgment included in the Supreme Court Law Reports 1979 page 143, where the following is stated on page 147: «I agree with the appeal court judge in that the same standards cannot be applied to the strength of the evidence as in the question of whether there is evidence that a defendant has committed the act as stated in the indictment. But I do not necessarily agree with the judge in that a preponderance of probability is sufficient. Should the forensic psychiatric expert witnesses reach differing conclusions, the defendant should, in my view, be exempted from punishment unless the court – i.e. the jury in cases tried by the Court of Appeal – should find that there can be no reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally sane at the time of committing the act. But the circumstance that the possibility of insanity at the time of the act is mentioned in the forensic psychiatric report is not sufficient for the defendant to be considered criminally insane and hence exempt from punishment.»

The prosecution referred to a statement in the Supreme Court Law Reports 1998 page 1945 (page 1947) about there being only differences in nuance between the standards of proof related to the various conditions of punishability. This decision concerned the standard of proof for a quantity of imported drugs, and not for criminal insanity. The general statement about the various conditions of punishability was consequently not necessary to justify the outcome of the case (obiter dictum), and is hence less important as a source of law for assessing the standards of proof for criminal sanity. However, legal scholars have in their books taken this to mean that there «is no basis for any particular reduction in the standards of proof» in case law, see Matningsdal and Bratholm: The Annotated Penal Code («Straffeloven kommentarutgave»), 2nd edition, page 366.

In the decision included in the Supreme Court Law Reports 2003 page 23, concerning the question of criminal sanity, the Supreme Court reported in para. 13, the above cited

26.09.2012

52

Utskrift fra Lovdata

formulation of the standard of proof in the Supreme Court Law Reports 1979 page 143, but does not mention the statement regarding the differences in nuance from the Supreme Court Law Reports 1998 page 1945. As one can see from paras. 16 and 17 of the ruling, the Court of Appeal found that there was sufficient basis for deeming the defendant criminally sane despite the fact that the expert witnesses with the approval of the Board of Forensic Medicine under a «certain doubt» concluded that the defendant was not insane at the time of committing the act. The Supreme Court writes the following about the actual assessment of evidence in para. 18: «I cannot see that the Court of Appeal has based itself on any erroneous understanding of the evidentiary rules when assessing whether A was criminally sane at the time of committing the act. The Court has taken as its point of departure the judgment in Supreme Court Law Reports 1979 page 143. On the basis of the forensic psychiatric report, their statements before the Court of Appeal and other evidence, the Court has, following a thorough discussion of A's criminal sanity, concluded, with a sufficient degree of certainty, that she was not psychotic at the time of the act. [...] The Court attached importance to the expert witnesses' conclusion, the premises for the conclusion and their oral statements at the trial and compared this with other evidence in the case.

In light of the law and past practice, no requirement for a more specific wording of the standard of proof can be derived, see Supreme Court Law Reports 1979 page 143, on page 147.»

In para. 14 of the ruling, the Supreme Court moreover refers to the preparatory works of section 44 of the Penal Code, in which the Proposition to the Odelsting No. 87 (1993–1994) page 114–115 states as follows: «If there is reasonable doubt as to the offender's criminal sanity, the Court must acquit him by virtue of the general rules related to the burden of proof of the Penal Code. In practice, somewhat weaker standards as to evidentiary strength are often applied when it comes to the defendant's criminal sanity than in respect of other conditions of punishability. In consequence, the Ministry concludes that the same requirements cannot be made in terms of evidentiary strength for criminal sanity as for the circumstance of whether the defendant has committed the act mentioned in the indictment. On the other hand, a preponderance of probability for criminal sanity would not necessarily be sufficient.»

When the [Norwegian] Parliament (the Storting) discussed the bill concerning new criminal insanity rules, there was broad agreement about retaining the unconditional exemption rule for psychotic persons. However, the Parliament rejected the Government's proposal for a discretionary exemption for offenders with, inter alia, other psychotic conditions. In the Recommendation to the Odelsting No. 34 (1996–1997) section 5.4, the grounds given are that «Exemption from punishment should be reserved for conditions where there can be no doubt about the basis for exemption». During the ensuing parliamentary debate, too, representatives for the majority argued that the exemption must be limited to «evidently», «clearly» or «indisputably» psychotic persons, where no doubt exists about the grounds for exemption from punishment. The Court interprets the Committee's note and the representatives' arguments as statements concerning which mental conditions that should justify exemption from punishment, and not as statement about the standard of proof under section 44. The Court refers to the fact that there was broad agreement that the then applicable rules for criminal sanity had generally worked satisfactorily, but that the most important problems were linked to the borderline cases. The Court also refers to the fact that the above cited Ministry statement about the standard of proof, taken from the Supreme Court Law Reports 1979 page 143, was not refuted during the parliamentary process. The Court believes that the statements are under no condition sufficient to reverse a standard of proof established by the courts. Nevertheless, the parliamentary process indicates that section 44 must not be interpreted in a broader sense to also include unclear borderline cases and complex psychotic conditions.

26.09.2012

53

Utskrift fra Lovdata

The District Court finds there are good reasons for such a lower standard of proof for criminal sanity. Though it is true that punishment is an intended evil expressing society's strong reproach of a crime, such a reproach would presuppose the offender to have criminal capacity. The sentence however also implicates an element of atonement, giving the convicted the opportunity to «settle his debts». In this perspective, the punishment is not exclusively an evil, but also a road back to society. If the standard of proof for criminal sanity is placed too high, this route would be shut off to many offenders with true criminal capacity. Besides, it is principally doubtful whether it is wise to bereave offenders of criminal capacity, and hence also moral and legal autonomy, by an unwarranted pathologization of their mind. Furthermore, with respect to society and those directly affected by a crime, the considerations to a fair retribution indicate that criminals with an actual criminal capacity must be sentenced. Certainly, the preparatory works of the new Penal Code of 2005 state that retribution cannot be the purpose of the sentence, cf. the Proposition to the Odelsting no. 90 (2003–2004) page 77. Notwithstanding, the Court finds that the subjective conditions for punishment, linking liability to guilt and criminal capacity, show that penal law does not exclusively build upon utilitarian considerations like prevention and renovation. The starting point of the legislators that «anybody must be held responsible for their acts», cf. the Recommendation to the Odelsting no. 34 (1996–1997), point 5.4, appears to be based upon a wider approach to the purpose of the punishment.

The Court further finds it unfortunate to transfer offenders who most likely no longer have a genuine need for treatment, to compulsory mental health care. It is true that a dangerous person who is not (or no longer) psychotic may be transferred to an institution under the correctional services «when particular reasons speak in favour thereof», cf. Act of 2 July 1999 no. 62 on Mental Health Care, Section 5–6. This possibility of transfer is nevertheless restricted, cf. the Supreme Court Law Reports 2011 page 1043, paragraph 27, and may only take place with the consent of the Court. Dangerous persons may thus be kept in the mental health care for years independently of the state of mind. On the other hand, as long as the Penal Code section 39 does not have any requirements for the state of mind at the moment of the judgment, it is not possible to safeguard against this.

The defence has submitted that the standard of proof must be lowered down towards the preponderance of probability if the defendant himself, such as in this case, wishes to be found criminally sane. In the enforcement of a penal sanction system, it is difficult for the Court to see that any emphasis can be placed on the wish of the defendant regarding the question of guilt. Equality before the law is a basic principle in criminal justice, and the application of law must not depend on such subjective aspects. Furthermore, a certain standard of proof must nevertheless be established to ensure that the wish of the defendant is not psychotically motivated. As the prosecution has pointed out, we may also raise the question as to what would be the consequence if the convicted later were to change his mind.

The defence has further contended that the standard of proof must be lowered in an equivalent manner if sentencing a defendant to be transferred to compulsory mental health care might be considered. The prosecution has maintained, inter alia, that the procedural system in cases determined by a jury prevents such differentiation. This is because the jury determines the question of guilt before the professional judges and four of the members of the jury determine the question of the reaction. Strictly speaking, it is hence not possible to make an overall assessment encompassing the question of criminal sanity and the question of transfer to compulsory mental health care.

The Court has, in its determination of this case, not found it necessary to assess whether the standard of proof needs to be further lowered in the cases where transfer to compulsory mental health care is considered. As will be evident in the following pages, the Court regardless finds that the standard of proof for criminal sanity, as worded most recently in the Supreme Court Law Reports 2003 page 23, is met.

Before the Court proceeds to treat the diagnostic assessment and the remaining evidence, [we] remark that the standard of proof applies to the overall result of the evidence, in other words the very conclusion, and not to each individual factor of evidence, cf. the Supreme Court Law Reports 2005 page 1353 paragraph 14.

26.09.2012

54

Utskrift fra Lovdata

6.2 The work and conclusions of the expert witnesses In the preparations to the proceedings, the District Court appointed four expert witnesses, all specialists in psychiatry, to assess the criminal sanity of the defendant. The expert witnesses have had identical mandates, but have examined the defendant at different times.

Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim were appointed on 28 July 2011. They submitted their forensic psychiatric report on 28 November 2011, in which they concluded that the defendant was psychotic at the time of the acts and during the observation. The Board of Forensic Medicine did not make any written remarks to the report of these psychiatrists.

Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrissen were appointed on 13 January 2012. In the court order of 10 February 2012, the Court decided, upon request from the psychiatrists, to submit the defendant to psychiatric examination for up to four weeks, cf. the Criminal Procedure Act, section 167. Aspaas and Tørrissen submitted their forensic psychiatric report on 10 April 2012, in which they concluded that the defendant was not psychotic at the time of the acts or during the observation. The believed the defendant suffers from a dissocial and narcissistic personality disorder. In several letters, the Board of Forensic Medicine has raised questions relating to the report of these psychiatrists, and the expert witnesses submitted a supplementary report on 30 April 2012 upon request from the board.

All four expert witnesses were present during the trial and testified in court, maintaining their previous conclusions. Representatives of the Board of Forensic Medicine also testified.

When the courtappointed expert witnesses reach different conclusions, the Court needs to go into the premises of the forensic psychiatric reports and assess these against the oral statements of the expert witnesses and the remaining evidence presented during the trial, cf. the Supreme Court Law Reports 2003 page 23, paragraph 18, cited above. In other words, it is not sufficient to refer to that there is disagreement between the expert witnesses, and then conclude that the standard of proof is not met. In NOU (Green paper) 1990:5, page 47, the following is stated about the responsibility of the court when the expert witnesses disagree: «When the medical principle is retained, it will in reality still be the psychiatrists' task to determine which offenders are exempt from criminal liability. But the principle whereby the court is formally free, in relation to the experts, is retained also after the committee's proposal. In practice, the court's own view will assume particular importance in those cases where the experts disagree. » When making its assessment, the Court applies this view.

6.3 On psychosis in general Below, the Court shall discuss the question of whether the defendant was psychotic at the time of the criminal acts, using the assessments of the expert witnesses as a starting point.

The experts Husby and Sørheim found that the defendant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and the Court will first assess this diagnosis in section 6.4. Next, in section 6.5, the diagnosis of paranoid psychosis will be considered, as the other psychotic disorder discussed by the psychiatrists. The Court will, in section 6.6, give an account of examinations made by treating and advisory health personnel. These examinations are relevant to both diagnoses. Finally, in point 6.7, the compulsory observation is assessed in conjunction with the Criminal Procedure Act section 167, before the Court makes its overall assessment in point 6.8.

As it transpires from the above review of the legal aspects, the psychiatric diagnosis system holds a central position in the assessment of criminal sanity.

The expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen provide an instructive summary of the central symptoms of psychosis in point 21.4 of their report. This is cited below, except for the part on hallucinations, which are not relevant in our case: «Psychoses in general Psychosis is understood as a state involving an impaired, erroneous or failing perception or interpretation of reality. The principal symptoms of a psychosis are hallucinations, delusions and disturbing thought processes, characterized as formal thought disturbances. A psychotic disorder is often accompanied by socalled negative

26.09.2012

55

Utskrift fra Lovdata

symptoms, i.e. functional impairment. Below follows a short description of these symptoms.

– Hallucinations ...

– Delusions are ideas about matters that are contrary to what is perceived as real by others. Examples of delusions are ideas of being under surveillance or being persecuted, that the body is decaying or changing, or entirely unrealistic thoughts about own talents, competence, influence, prosperity, etc. The latter are called psychotic delusions of grandeur or grandiose delusions. Bizarre delusions designate psychotic ideas about phenomena that are not physically possible, e.g. that one's thoughts are broadcast, that thoughts are governed by extraneous forces or that emotions and impulses are forced upon one from outside. When assessing delusions, it is necessary to take into consideration what are generally accepted ideas and thoughts in the culture, subculture or environment in which a person lives.

– Formal thought disturbances designate phenomena related to thought processes.

Examples of this are slow thinking (latency), exaggerated vagueness, thoughts coming to a stop or becoming illogical or incoherent, or that thoughts follow arbitrary associations and hence give no meaning. «Neologisms» are a form of thought disturbance designating the coining of new words – incomprehensible words that a person invents himself and which do not exist in the normal vocabulary. Compound words are common in Norwegian and are not normally considered as neologisms.

– Negative symptoms are used to designate various forms of functional impairment which often accompany psychotic disorders. Loss of initiative, passivity, blunted or inadequate emotional life, impaired ability for interpersonal contact, lack of interest or drive, social withdrawal and aimless behaviour are examples of negative symptoms. Often, neglect will be observed in other areas as well, such as personal hygiene, nutrition, control of finances, ability to care for oneself and nextofkin, etc.

– Depersonalization and derealisation are terms designating that a person has changed his perception of himself or stands outside himself or sees his surroundings or the world as changed. This can occur in certain psychoses, but can also be seen under severe stress or in the face of serious danger, especially in vulnerable people.»

Before the Court goes into detail on the diagnostic criteria of the psychotic states in question, we include Husby and Sørheim's summary of what they have considered to be the various delusions of the defendant. What follows is from pages 225 to 226 in their report: «The observee believes that he is by prescriptive right the ideological leader of the organization Knights Templar, which has the mandate to be a military order as well as a martyr organization, military tribunal, judge, jury and executioner. He believes that he is responsible for determining who is to live and die in Norway. This responsibility is perceived as real, but also a heavy burden. These phenomena are regarded as bizarre, grandiose delusions.

He believes that a significant portion of the population (several hundred thousand) support the reported acts. He believes that his love is overdeveloped. He believes he is a pioneer in a European civil war. He compares his situation with historical war heroes such as Tsar Nicholas and Queen Isabelle. These phenomena are regarded as grandiose delusions.

The observee believes that it is likely, albeit with somewhat varying estimated degrees of likelihood, that he could be the new regent in Norway following a coup d'état and power takeover. If he becomes the new regent, he will take the name Sigurd the Crusader the Second. He believes that he has donated five million kroner to the fight.

He believes he could be given responsibility for deporting several hundreds of thousands of Muslims to ports in North Africa. These phenomena are regarded as grandiose delusions.

The observee believes that there is an ongoing process of ethnic cleansing in Norway

26.09.2012

56

Utskrift fra Lovdata

and that he lives in fear of being killed. He believes that a third nuclear world war could be triggered as a result of the events that he sees himself a part of. He believes that there is an ongoing civil war in the country. The observee is working with proposals for solutions aimed at improving our Norwegian ethnic, genetic pool, eradicating disease and reducing the divorce rate. He foresees reservations (for «indigenous Norwegians»), DNA testing and mass childbirth factories. These ideas are considered as elements of a bizarre, paranoid delusional system.

The observee believes that the Glücksburgs (the Norwegian and European royal families) will be removed by a revolution in 2020. As an alternative to recruiting a new regent from the Guardian Council, DNA testing will be made of the remains of Olav the Holy or Harald Hard Rule. Thereafter, the Norwegian population will be DNA tested in order to find the person with the greatest genetic similarity, who could then be instated as the country's new regent. These ideas are considered as elements of a bizarre, paranoid delusional system.»

On pages 227 to 228, they have included the following passage from the defendant's statement made at Utøya: «In his statement to the police at 20:15 on 22.07.2011, the observee states that he is a commander, and he goes on to say: We are crusaders and nationalists . The observee states that the reported acts committed the same day are the manifestations of the beginning of a very bloody civil war. He claims, in the same statement, that the Knights Templar Norway have given him the authority to execute A, B and C traitors and that the organization is the highest military, police and political authority in Norway. These symptoms are considered to be grandiose and paranoid delusions.»

The experts Husby and Sørheim on the one hand, and Aspaas and Tørrissen on the other, disagree as to whether the notions herein described are psychotic delusions or must be understood as an expression of rightwing extremist points of view in combination with a grandiose and narcissistic personality. The defendant has expressed the same fundamental ideas to both sets of experts, but has toned down the presentation of the Knights Templar's and his own role in the consultations with the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen. The Court will revert to the significance of this toning down.

6.4 Paranoid schizophrenia According to the expert witness' mandate, «the international diagnostic system (currently ICD-10) [...] shall be used for the diagnostics and differential diagnostics relevant to the forensic psychiatric assessment».

ICD-10 Chapter V contains a criteriabased diagnostic system for mental and behavioural disorders prepared by the World Health Organization (hereinafter WHO) published in what is often referred to as the «Green Book». WHO has also prepared clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines in the socalled Blue Book. It is only the blue book that has been translated into Norwegian. The Court's discussion below takes as a point of departure the researchbased and precise diagnostic criteria of the Green Book. According to the expert witnesses, this should not be of decisive importance for the diagnosing, although the Blue Book allows for a higher degree of clinical discretion.

The expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim believe the defendant has had clear psychotic symptoms since 2006 with gradual deterioration. They believe he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia both at the time of the acts and when they examined him. On page 234 of the report they find «his entire symptom picture unaltered from the descriptions before and during the reported acts and until the entire examination». Consequently, the Court finds it unnecessary to discuss the relationship between his mental state at the time of the reported acts and at the time of the examination.

In the Green Book, the special diagnostic criteria for paranoid schizophrenia (F20.0) are described as follows: A. The general criteria for Schizophrenia (F20.0–F20.3 [above]) [must be met.]

B. Delusions or hallucinations must be prominent (such as delusions of persecution,

26.09.2012

57

Utskrift fra Lovdata

reference, exalted birth, special mission, bodily change or jealousy; threatening or commanding voices, hallucinations of smell or taste, sexual or other bodily sensations).

C. Flattening or incongruity of affect, catatonic symptoms, or incoherent speech must not dominate the clinical picture, although they may be present to a mild degree.

The diagnosis paranoid schizophrenia (F20.0) is in other words conditional upon the general criteria for schizophrenia being met, and upon delusions or hallucinations being prominent (exemplified, inter alia, by ideas of being persecuted and being of exalted birth and being convinced of having a special mission in life).

The general criteria for the diagnosis of schizophrenia, cited below, require the presence of at least one symptom from symptom group 1 (letters a) to d)), or at least two symptoms from symptom group 2 (letters a) to d)). Below, the Court shall denominate the symptoms of symptom group 2 by the letters e) to h) in line with the expert witnesses' lettering of the same criteria from the Blue Book. The experts Husby and Sørheim have found the criteria b) (perceptual delusions) and d) (bizarre delusions) from symptom group 1, as well as f) (thought disturbances and neologisms) and h) (negative symptoms) from symptom group 2 to be present.

The parties disagree as to whether the defendant meets the general criteria for schizophrenia. This disagreement is in particular linked to symptom group 1 letter d), which in the Green Book is described as follows: «(d) persistent delusions of other kinds that are culturally inappropriate and completely impossible (e.g. being able to control the weather, or being in communication with aliens from another world).»

Translated into Norwegian, this means persistent delusions that are culturally inappropriate and completely impossible, for instance being able to control the weather, or communicating with beings from an alien world.

In the diagnostic conclusion on page 228, the expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim write that the defendant «has had clear symptoms from symptom group ....d) Persistent, bizarre delusions, exemplified by the idea that he is taking part in a civil war where he is responsible for determining who is to live and die, as well as expecting a takeover of power in Europe».

At the trial, these experts summarized the defendant's fundamental delusions in the following precise wording: «He believes that he is to save us all from doom in a fight between good and evil. In this fight, he believes that he has a responsibility and a calling to determine who is to live and die. This responsibility is rooted in a leading position in a nonexistent organization.»

The experts specified that the core element of these delusions is the defendant's perception of his own role and of this responsibility being a reality.

The head of the Psychiatric Group of the Board of Forensic Medicine, Karl Heinrik Melle, stated during the trial that it was not immediately evident to the Group that the delusions described in the expert witness' report were of such a nature as described in criterion d).

Nor did the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen or other health personnel find any delusions under criterion d), a fact to which the Court will return. Ulrik Fredrik Malt, Professor of Psychiatry, who during his testimony in court gave a thorough presentation of the diagnostic criteria under ICD-10, was of the opinion that none of the delusions described in Husby and Sørheim's report fell within criterion d). Svenn Torgersen, Professor of Psychology, who has worked with schizophrenia for many years, expressed the same opinion during his testimony.

As regards the more detailed assessment of the criteria under letter d), the Court takes as a point of departure that the delusions must be «culturally inappropriate».

The experts Husby and Sørheim write on page 57 of their report that they «have not taken

26.09.2012

58

Utskrift fra Lovdata

a stance on the observee's political message or position». Nonetheless, during their review of the compendium they have placed his political ideas into a political context when they write the following on page 62: «Without going into the observee's political views, the experts have ascertained that his image of the state of Europe and the state of Norway is extreme and appears to lack any factual basis when it comes to many of his interpretations and assertions. However, the bulk of this material appears more to be an application of existing, political trends than a creation made by himself, as much of it is a cutandpaste exercise from a variety of websites and historical sources. This also means that his quotations and conclusions are shared by a number of other people both in Norway and the rest of Europe.»

This political context is however absent in the expert witness' running assessment of the defendant's symptoms, and in the diagnostic assessment starting on page 220. In that assessment, the defendant's various statements are understood in the light of his «stable, detailed and allencompassing paranoid and grandiose delusions», as described by the experts in their summing up of his delusional universe on page 229 of the report. The Court misses a wider discussion of alternative interpretations of the defendant's various statements, especially on the basis of the rightwing extremist subculture of which he claims to be part.

The Court makes reference to the fact that the defendant became politically active at the age of 18. He joined the Progress Party's Youth in 1997 and the Frogner local chapter of the Progress Party in 1999. For some time he held elected offices at the local chapter level in both organisations. The defendant has explained that he was attracted, inter alia, by the Progress Party's restrictive immigration policies. The Court lacks an overview of the defendant's political participation until he was forced to leave the Progress Party in 2006 and left the Progress Party's Youth in 2007. The defendant's friends have however described him as a stubborn person with strong and «strange» opinions and with an intense interest in politics. Since 2009, the defendant has been an active writer on www.dokument.no [sic], a website that is critical to immigration. The defendant's rightwing extremist ideology is also documented through his compendium.

During the trial, anti-Islamic and rightwing extremist ideas and rhetoric were thoroughly elucidated. In rightwing extremist circles, words like «war» and «civil war» are used often in a figurative and strongly exaggerated sense. It is not uncommon to use symbols and historical parallels in the communication of extremist messages. Antiimmigration circles also express views of ethnic doom, demographic warfare, and the necessity of a future takeover of power.

In the compendium on page 952, the defendant himself describes what he means by «civil war». The European civil war, phase 1 – 1999–2030 is an «[o]pen source warfare, military shock attacks by clandestine cell systems» and «Further consolidation of conservative forces». These phrases can hardly be said to contain delusions of an ongoing conventional civil war. A more obvious interpretation is to consider this to be a platform statement on how to reach the defendant's goal of getting the Muslims out of Europe. Such an interpretation is supported by the defendant's statement during the interrogation at Utøya after his arrest when said he participated in a «political» war.

The experts Husby and Sørheim have also emphasised the intensity of the defendant's statements. On page 62 of their report they go on to write the following after the above quotation: «However, the experts have been struck by the intensity of the observee's war terminology and his perception and description of being in a war, which in turn leads up the reported acts. The experts have seen, both in the compendium but also in other contacts with him during the course of our own talks with him and examination of the police interview reports, that he in fact has an emotional and real perception of war, doom and own duty as a saviour.»

Also during the trial, these experts noted that the defendant became intense and experienced physiological reactions when acts of murder and violence were described. They

26.09.2012

59

Utskrift fra Lovdata

believed the defendant was driven by ideas of violence and not by politics.

Nonetheless, the question is whether the intensity of the defendant's ideas indicates that they should be classified as delusions under criterion d). Again, an alternative interpretation would be to understand his intensity as a manifestation of a fanatical and farright extremist worldview, combined with a grandiose and narcissistic personality. The circumstance that the defendant in other contexts has toned down his statements on war, doom and his own task as a saviour, speak in favour of such an alternative interpretation.

The Court's assessment thus far is that the defendant's statement of being a participant in a civil war with expectations of a takeover of power in Europe can be understood in a political context that is significant in farright extremist subcultures. Nonetheless, the Court assumes that the defendant alone planned the acts of murder concerned, which subsequently seem to have been endorsed by only a quite limited number of persons.

This brings the Court to the second criterion under letter d); that the delusions must be «completely impossible». During the trial, the experts Husby and Sørheim specified that what is completely impossible is the defendant's selfperceived responsibility and calling to decide who is to live and die.

The question is whether the idea of having such a responsibility or calling is completely impossible in the sense used in criterion d). At the trial, Professor Malt explained that the criterion «completely impossible» is not clearly defined, and that consequently there is room for different interpretations. It is common to apply this criterion to delusions that are strange, weird, absurd and beyond what is physically possible. Professor of Psychology Svenn Torgersen explained at the trial that the delusion must represent a «break with naturalscience thinking». In their report, the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen use the designation «physically impossible», which seems to be in keeping with this. In the test SCID-1 under the American diagnostic system DSM-IV, the concept «bizarre» is applied to the same criteriabased delusion.

Naturally, the Court agrees with the expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim in that a selfperceived responsibility or calling to decide who gets to live and die is fully unacceptable from an ethical point of view. However, as the defence also argued, a person's conception of having such a calling goes to the very core of politically or religiously founded terrorism.

The defendant has in a fanatical and cynical manner maintained that the selection of victims and object for his misdeeds on 22 July 2011 was politically motivated. It is difficult for the Court to see that his conceptions of murders and terrorist acts to attain a future political goal – regardless how incomprehensible and reproachable they may be – can be «completely impossible», which is how this diagnostic criterion is normally applied according to information at hand. Like the Court will revert to, the expert witnesses also disagree about whether such conceptions constitute pathological delusions.

In this context, the Court will not pursue the defendant's role in Knight's Templar, since any genuine conviction about playing a leading role in a nonexistent organisation can hardly be deemed to be «completely impossible» in relation to criterion d). The Court will revert to the significance of the Knights Templar below when it deals with paranoid psychosis.

Based on the above, the Court believes that the defendant has not had delusions that are sufficiently subculturally inappropriate and impossible to be covered by the usual scientific and clinical application of criterion d).

As already mentioned, it will suffice that at least one symptom from symptom group 1 or at least two symptoms from symptom group 2 are met in order for the basic criterion for the schizophrenia diagnosis to be met. Even though the expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim also found that criterion b) in symptom group 1 and criteria f) and h) in symptom group 2 were met, the prosecuting authority said in its closing arguments that its demand for judgment to have the defendant transferred to compulsory mental health care was based on criterion d) being satisfied. This was because the prosecuting authority believed that the other criteria were based on a weaker foundation. The Court has an independent responsibility for the application of law and will therefore also address the other symptoms that the expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim deemed existed.

Criterion b) has been defined in the Green Book as follows:

26.09.2012

60

Utskrift fra Lovdata

«(b) delusions of control, influence, or passivity, clearly referred to body or limb movements or specific thoughts, actions, or sensations; delusional perception.»

Translated into Norwegian this means delusions of being controlled, influenced by external forces, or passivity with a clear reference to body or limb movements, or specific thoughts, actions, or sensations; delusional perception.

On page 228 of the diagnostic evaluation, the expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim write that the defendant showed «clear symptoms from symptom group b): Delusions in respect of perception and control, exemplified by the feeling that the observee knows what others are thinking.»

The expert witnesses' observations have been described in more detail in two minuted talks. One observation from the first talk with the defendant on 10 August 2011 is found on page 88 of the expert witnesses' report: «One of the expert witnesses asks how the observee was to determine whether we were speaking the truth, had we answered the questions. The observee smiles and says: I already know that. Thousands of hours of sales work have enabled me to predict with a probability of 70% what the person I am talking to is thinking. So I know that none of you are Marxistoriented, but both are politically correct and support multiculturalism. ...

The expert witnesses ask the observee if he is guessing or if he knows what others are thinking. I know, says the observee, that's a big difference.»

Moreover, the expert witnesses write the following about status praesens following a talk with the defendant on 23 August 2011 page 109: «The observee believes that he knows what people he is talking to are thinking, since he believes he knows how former fellow party members from the Progress Party would characterize him now. The phenomenon is considered to be psychotically based.»

According to Melle's testimony, the Board of Forensic Medicine accepted this as a delusional perception. The defendant made similar statements to the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen, but they did not interpret the statements as delusional perceptions. Nor did psychiatrist Randi Rosenqvist, advisor to the management of Ila Preventive Detention and Security Prison, interpret similar statements made during her examination of the defendant as signs of psychosis.

In the expert witnesses' evaluation of this criterion, the Court would have liked to see a discussion of possible alternative interpretations by the expert witnesses. Firstly, the expert witnesses could have taken the defendant at his word in the sense that he felt his sales work experience had made him a good judge of character. He could also be perceived as being categorical in his way of thinking by tending to label people. A third possible interpretation could be that he boasts talents he does not have, which would possibly be in line with a grandiose and narcissistic personality.

The Court believes that such alternative interpretations are more obvious for the two observations described by the expert witnesses, and can therefore not see that criterion b) is met.

The Court now moves to discuss symptom group 2, criterion f), which in the Green Book is defined as «neologisms, breaks, or interpolations in the train of thought, resulting in incoherence or irrelevant speech».

Translated into Norwegian this means neologisms, breaks in the train of thought, or interpolations in the line of thinking, resulting in incoherent or irrelevant speech.

The expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim have found «clear symptoms from symptom group f): Breaks or interpolation in the train of thought, exemplified by periodic perseveration, associative speech and neologisms.»

Associational disturbance and perseveration (repetition of the same basic topics) have

26.09.2012

61

Utskrift fra Lovdata

been described under the diagnostic evaluations of these expert witnesses on pages 226–227 as follows: «The observee is at times difficult to follow, because he changes subject quickly and must be brought back to the topic. He associates richly and his associations bring him – almost always and irrespective of angle of approach – back to his political message, his perceived mission and position. The phenomenon is considered to be a moderate associational disturbance.

When given the opportunity to speak freely, the observee focuses uninterruptedly on the same topics. He relates time and time again the same details related to his own knighthood, radicalisation process, the Knights Templar organisation, the forthcoming coup d'état and power takeover in Norway and Europe. The phenomenon is regarded by the expert witnesses as perseveration. No latency or thought blocks occur during the talks. The observee does not display disorganised behaviour.»

The expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen also observed the defendant's tendency to revert to a stereotypical political argumentation with a repetition of appurtenant illustrations, e.g. that the bombing of Japan under World War II allegedly saved many lives, and that the riots in Paris before the general election in 2009 had not been fully covered by Norwegian media to prevent a successful outcome for the Progress Party in the election. However, they did not deem this to be a psychotic «repetitive» mode of speech.

At the trial, the Court also noted that the defendant kept coming back to the topics he was most passionate about. However, these repetitions did not result in incoherent or irrelevant speech, as required by criterion f). The Court did not at any point find it difficult to follow or understand the meaning of what the defendant said.

The question of whether the defendant uses neologisms has been strongly highlighted during the trial. A neologism is not defined in detail in the diagnostic system and according to Professor Malt it may open for multiple interpretations. However, it is normally used about a totally incomprehensible new word which somebody has coined him-/herself or about existing words/word combinations which somebody uses in a totally incomprehensible manner.

The expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim said the following about neologisms on page 225: «The observee presents selfcoined words such as national Darwinist, suicidal Marxist and suicidal humanism, justiciar knight, justiciar knight commander, justiciar knight master or justiciar knight grand master. These concepts are regarded as neologisms.»

Similar word combinations which the expert witnesses consider to be neologisms are reported several places in the report.

According to Melle, the Board of Forensic Medicine believed that the expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim applied the neologism concept unusually. The group would have liked to see the expert witnesses ask followup questions. Neither Professor Malt, nor other expert witnesses, supported the expert witnesses' neologism findings, as described in their report.

The presentation of evidence disclosed that several of these word combinations are also used by others. The expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen have e.g. found many of the same word combinations on the Internet, inter alia, in a rightwing extremist context. The knight and justiciar terminology is allegedly also used in the computer game World of Warcraft and in the Masonic Order. Consequently, these expert witnesses did not believe that the defendant used neologisms.

The expert witness Sørheim mentioned in her testimony that the words were neologisms because they formed part of the defendant's delusional universe. The Court believes that such a view may easily lead to circular reasoning. In any case, the Court believes that the expressions and word combinations can be understood in a context that makes them meaningful and can not see that the word combinations result in incoherent or irrelevant speech, as required by criterion f).

On this basis, the Court believes that criterion f) has not been met.

26.09.2012

62

Utskrift fra Lovdata

The Court then moves to address criterion h) in symptom group 2, which is the last possible general schizophrenia criterion, defined as follows in the Green Book: ««negative» symptoms, such as marked apathy, paucity of speech, and blunting of [sic] incongruity of emotional responses (it must be clear that these are not due to depression or to neuroleptic medication).»

Translated into Norwegian this means «negative symptoms», such as marked apathy, paucity of speech, blunted emotions or incongruity of emotional responses not due to depression or neuroleptic medication.

Blunted emotions imply that a person has a limited range of emotional responses. Such limitations will e.g. manifest themselves in few facial expressions, reduced or inappropriate responses, inadequate body language or reduced spontaneous mobility. The Court's understanding is that impaired empathy, i.e. the ability to feel compassion for others, is not necessarily a negative symptom as described in criterion h).

The expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim found on page 228 of their report that the defendant displayed «clear symptoms of symptom group [...] (h): Negative symptoms, exemplified by appearing to be notably emotionally blunted».

On page 224, this is described as follows: «The observee appeared to be emotionally blunted, with complete emotional distance in respect of his own situation and of the expert witnesses. The observee maintains that the killing of the victims was justified, that he has no regrets and feels no remorse [...] Nor does the observee express any emotions in relation to his family and friends. He describes all topics, from his own childhood to the executions of the reported acts in operationalised speech, with no emotional component. The observee appears to be affectively blunted and with serious empathetic failure.»

The Court does not find it difficult, based on its own observations during the trial, to concur in the observations here described. The Court nevertheless noted that the defendant cried during the showing of his own propaganda film, allegedly because he was touched.

Such affect was not immediately comprehensible to others, however. The question is whether the affective flattening in the defendant to a certain degree may be situational, both related to the time while he was in solitary confinement at Ila [prison], and during the trial with all the pressure that it must have represented to him.

The experts Aspaas and Tørrissen explained that they have observed a broader range of emotions in the defendant. During the main hearing, Tørrissen nevertheless reacted to the lack of emotional reactions during the review of the autopsy reports and the statements of the aggrieved parties. This resulted in another consultation between Tørrissen and the defendant at the premises of the courthouse holding cells. According to Tørrissen, the defendant appeared more emotionally flattened in court than what he did at Ila and in the holding cell, where he appeared more relaxed and natural. The observation of the defendant in court did not change these psychiatrists' earlier assessment of the defendant's state of mind in general or of his affective flattening in particular, which they summarize on pages 299–300 as follows: «The observee appears as emotionally blunted when it comes to take to heart the suffering he has inflicted upon others. He shows no remorse and would have done the same again. His acknowledgement of having committed atrocities seems superficial and technical. However, he has shown perfectly adequate abilities to interact and communicate with the expert witnesses and health personnel. His emotional flattening is not assessed to be of the kind seen in serious mental illnesses, but is understood as expressions of pathological personality traits.»

In support of finding negative symptoms under criterion h), the experts Husby and Sørheim have greatly emphasized the decline in the functioning levels of the defendant in the years preceding the terrorist attacks. Using criterion i) of the Blue Book as a starting

26.09.2012

63

Utskrift fra Lovdata

point, this is described on page 228 in their report as «a considerable and persistent change in quality of certain areas of personal conduct, described through marked functional impairment with social, practical and financial collapse».

The Court remarks that criterion i) is not a general criterion for schizophrenia, but belongs to the symptom group of simple schizophrenia (F20.6). These psychiatrists have nevertheless given this criterion great importance, presumably since such withdrawal symptoms usually accompany the negative symptoms described in letter h). In the Green Book, criterion i is described as «a marked decline in social, scholastic, or occupational performance».

The expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim write the following about the decline in the functioning levels of the defendant on page 227: «It is the assessment of the expert witnesses that the observee in the period 2002 to 2006 showed a tendency of increasing isolation with gradually declining functioning skills.

The expert witnesses do not have any facts to ascertain when the psychotic symptoms of the observee first appeared, but it cannot be excluded that the onset of symptoms was already in this period.

From 2006 on, the collected documentation describes a definite shift of the functioning level of the observee. Friends testify that from this time on, the observee withdrew from social contact, turned quieter, moved back in with his mother, and stopped working.

These phenomena are considered by the psychiatrists to be withdrawal, isolation and a lacking ability to meet the demands of the working life.

The mother of the observee has described that the observee turned day and night around, played computer games a lot, and from this time on mostly stayed in his room. The observee did not take part in cleaning and maintenance of the apartment or his own laundry, and did not cook himself. His mother bought the groceries. The mother of the observee describes how he, upon her incitement, did not want to contact the Labour and Welfare Services (NAV) for assistance, either of practical or financial nature. The symptoms are considered by the psychiatrists to be extensive functional impairment, in practical, social, and economic terms, and with respect to capacity for work.»

The expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen agree that the defendant functioned outside of normal society for a long time, but they believe that this was premeditated behaviour due to his highly special aims and activities. On page 299 in their report, these psychiatrists write, inter alia, the following on negative symptoms: «It is well described that the observee has withdrawn from friends for long periods at a time. He has also spent a lot of time alone in his room in the mother's apartment to play computer games, especially in 2006/2007. On his withdrawal, the observee has explained that he spent the time on preparations for the terrorist act and that he thus had to give up part of his social life. However, he has stayed in touch with friends, right up until just before 22 July 2011. In the period when he spent a great part of his time on computer games, this happened in a way which, to the knowledge of the expert witnesses, implies that he would to a considerable extent participate in a social interaction with a large number of fellow players through internetbased verbal communication, and for hours on end. No evidence has thus been presented of withdrawal, as seen in psychotic illnesses, in the opinion of the psychiatrists.»

The Court does not find sufficient grounds to establish a pathological drop in functioning levels in the period from 2002 to 2006. Investigations have disclosed that the defendant sold false diplomas in this period with a total revenue of nearly NOK 3.7 million, while he was also trading in shares. He moved to live on his own in 2003, but he still kept in touch with friends and family members.

However, there is no doubt that the defendant underwent a considerable professional, social and practical alteration in behaviour in 2006. The Court believes the background of this alteration in behaviour may be complex.

The defendant has explained that he discontinued his business activities, which he

26.09.2012

64

Utskrift fra Lovdata

describes as legal, but immoral, because he was afraid of being negatively exposed in the media. Once his company was dissolved in February 2006, he set up his account in the World of Warcraft in March, i.e. half a year prior to moving back to his mother's place. The Court believes a form of compulsive gambling may have been a contributing factor to why he chose to move back in with his mother and withdraw from a social and active work life.

The Court furthermore does not disregard the possibility that the underlying relationship to his mother may explain some of the defendant's dependency upon her in practical matters.

The experts Husby and Sørheim include, on pages 48–50 in their report, documents from the National Centre of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (SSBU) from 1983, in which there is mention of the relationship between the defendant and the mother. Furthermore, on page 68 in their report, they have included a letter from the halfsister B to the mother, presumably from 2009 or 2010. In the letter, B addresses what she perceives as problems with her brother that have lasted for years, and she writes the following, among other things: «I am like an echo stating what I have said for so many years, actually ever since I was little, as far back as I can remember – let him have his own life!» The Court has, in the extension of this, also noted the information that the mother cleaned the apartment of the defendant after he moved into a place of his own.

The Court believes that at any rate, the deviant conduct of the defendant may be understood in the light of his personality. Already in 1998, he made an untraditional choice by leaving school in the third [and final] year of upper secondary school to earn money and become an entrepreneur. This was in spite of him doing well in school, in spite of both knowledge and his resume being important to him, and besides he was in a community where it was common to complete twelve years of school. The business areas which he later chose to try out must also be said to be peculiar; especially the diamond trading in Liberia in 2002 and the production of false diplomas from 2002. Friends of the defendant have described him as a social and good friend, though at the same time as «stubborn» with «eccentric» opinions, «the outsider of the group», «goaloriented» and as a person who committed «110%» to what interested him.

Furthermore, it is well documented that the defendant was both goaloriented and «productive» from the time when he moved back to his mother's house in 2006, until 22 July 2011. From 2006 he played World of Warcraft at a high level, and according to the testimony of a fellow player, he was «the best officer» this player had ever had. As previously described, the game is social and requires good communication between the players. The defendant later prepared his ideological compendium in English of nearly 2.000 pages, including, inter alia, a detailed terrorism manual. He gradually acquired knowledge on the production of bombs, got hold of weapons, effects, and equipment. He made several trips abroad in 2009 and 2010, and joined Oslo pistolklubb [Oslo Pistol Club] in 2010. He founded the company A Geofarm as a sole proprietorship in May 2009, signed a rental contract and moved to Åsta farm in the beginning of May 2011. Here, he produced the bomb and made a test explosion. The defendant succeeded in keeping his extensive terrorism preparations hidden from the surrounding world. He carried out the terrorist attacks on 22 July 2011 in line with his plans, and the witnesses from Utøya have explained that he walked around the island calmly, aiming precisely when shooting at his victims.

The activities described above show that the defendant had stamina, impulse control and good cognitive functions related to the tasks he assigned himself. The Court finds the defendant's ability to plan and implement in these various areas hard to reconcile with untreated paranoid schizophrenia with a gradual deterioration from 2006. The experts Husby and Sørheim did explain this by stating that the defendant is among the onethird of schizophrenics who retain most of their cognitive functions. The Court still wonders whether this explanation is reconcilable with their assessment of the defendant's pathological and total functional impairment in all areas.

In the assessment of the defendant's functioning, the Court will at any rate emphasize that in the period from 2006, he maintained, and in part resumed, certain normal activities. All this time, he would pay his mother NOK 3.500 a month out of his savings, and besides he was well dressed and groomed. He continued to trade in shares, and is registered with 60

26.09.2012

65

Utskrift fra Lovdata

transactions in 2008 at his most active. In 2006 he joined the Masonic Lodge, where he attended a few meetings and was later promoted in the degrees every year, most recently to the 3rd degree in 2009. In 2007/2008 he resumed contact with friends with whom he travelled to Budapest in 2009. The friends have not reported any conspicuous behaviour on behalf of the defendant after the contact was reestablished. Furthermore, it has been stated that the defendant was on Facebook and had a number of email addresses. Although social contact on the Internet cannot be compared to social contact in the real world, the Court nevertheless believes it to be relevant in the overall assessment of the functioning of the defendant.

The experts Husby and Sørheim appear to have placed great emphasis on information from the mother on the defendant's functioning in the year prior to the indicted acts. On page 223 of their report, they write as follows: «From 2010, the observee's mother describes a qualitative change in his way of being.

She describes how the observee from this point on was concerned with infection, his own appearance and was uncomfortably intense, irritable and angry. It became increasingly important to him to impart politics and history, and the mother felt pressured by him. She describes that it was difficult for her to understand what he wanted to relay. She described the observee as utterly beyond, and believed in all the rubbish he said. The phenomena are assessed by the psychiatrists to be an expression of psychotic delusions.

The observee's mother describes how the observee no longer appeared to know how to keep an appropriate distance from her, as he could go from sitting down much too close to her on the sofa, to not wanting to accept the food she served. This behaviour is assessed by the psychiatrists to be regulation difficulties as a consequence of paranoid delusions.»

In their letters of 23 April and 31 May 2012, the Board of Forensic Medicine criticizes the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen for not having procured data from supplementary informants on the defendant in his childhood and adolescent years and in early adulthood, especially from the years when he lived with his mother as an adult. They have also found it to be a significant flaw of the report that these psychiatrists have not stated their grounds for «how such potentially important information [from the mother] is neither considered in the SCID-1 scoring nor in the general diagnostic assessment».

In the supplementary report of 30 April 2012, these objections are met with, inter alia, this reply: «The most immediate source of obtaining firsthand information from a supplementary informant would be from the observee's mother, who has had close contact with him over the years. The mother has been interviewed by the police six times, [resulting in] altogether more than 200 pages of statements. She has also been interviewed by the expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim. In this manner, we have had access to extensive information from her. It is noted that in early statements, she has given a fairly normal description of the observee. Though she has indeed worried about him not being in permanent employment, she has otherwise described him as kind, considerate, a problem solver for his friends, hard working. On the eve of the indicted acts they had a good time together and there was unusual to point out. Later, and especially to expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim, she has meant that he «must be insane» and has talked of him as «utterly beyond, and believed in all the rubbish he said». Hence, we would unavoidably face contradictory information from the mother if a new interview were done. Considering this factor, as well as the information that she has serious health problems (which have also made her exempt from appearing in court), the expert witnesses have refrained from asking her to meet us for a consultation.»

The Court interprets the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen as having assessed also the extensive material from the various statements of the defendant's mother's when making their diagnostic assessment, which they confirmed at the trial. The Court does however agree with the Board of Forensic Medicine in that it would have been clearly advantageous if these

26.09.2012

66

Utskrift fra Lovdata

experts had gathered firsthand information from the defendant's mother, having in mind also the contradictions they noted in her various statements.

Nonetheless, the Court believes that the defendant's behaviour towards his mother from 2010 onwards most likely can be understood against the background of the upcoming terrorist attacks, which he at the time was in full swing preparing from their shared home. As a part of these preparations, in the winter of 2010 he took his first course of anabolic steroids, which also may have influenced his behaviour towards her. Additionally, the information provided by the defendant's mother seems to contrast somewhat with witness statements from friends saying that the defendant was approaching his «old self» in the course of 2010/2011. Nor have any other family members reported anything unusual from the family gathering at Christmas 2010 in their police interviews. The defendant's half sister on his father's side stated in a police interview that «A was the way he has always been; articulate, knowledgeable, and it seemed like he was doing a lot of thinking. He knew a lot about history and religion», cf. the quotation in the report of the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen on page 122.

As regards the experts Husby and Sørheim's description of the regulation problems in the above quotation, the Court notes a similar ambivalence between closeness and distance in mother's relationship to the defendant described in the documents from the National Centre of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry from 1983. This information, which the Court does not find reason to discuss in further detail, may support the notion that the described behaviour is relationally based and not a manifestation of paranoid delusions.

Following the above, the Court believes it is more obvious to interpret the defendant's changes in behaviour in 2006 and 2010 in the light of his particular personality and what he had set out to do, rather than as being negative symptoms of schizophrenia. However, the Court does not take a stance on whether the defendant's flattened affectivity, considered in isolation, falls under criterion h), as the existence of a single symptom from symptom group 2 in any case is insufficient.

The Court's conclusion thus far is that the defendant did not have symptoms that fulfil the general ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, the way these criteria are normally applied in clinical and scientific practice.

Besides, as already mentioned, the Board of Forensic Medicine did not unconditionally agree with the experts Husby and Sørheim's findings of bizarre delusions and neologisms.

According to Mr. Melle's statement, the Board of Forensic Medicine nonetheless refrained from making written remarks to their report because they believed the symptoms described in any case were compatible with a paranoid psychosis (F22). The Court does not agree with the Board in this line of reasoning. After all, the experts Husby and Sørheim had themselves rejected this diagnosis; amongst other things because they believed that the defendant's marked flattening of affect was incompatible with the ICD-10 criteria for paranoid psychosis. Moreover, had not representatives of the Board been summoned later to give evidence at the trial, the Court would have remained unaware of the Board's assessment that central diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia were poorly documented. Additionally, the Court cannot see that the Board's substantive remarks to the report of the experts Husby and Sørheim are less significant than the written remarks to the report of the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen. As the Court will discuss below, these remarks concerned, inter alia, documentation of the general criteria for the diagnosis of personality disorder, which is not of decisive importance for the question of criminal sanity. Consequently, in its assessment of the evidence the Court will not attach any independent importance to the fact that the Board of Forensic Medicine made written remarks to only one of the two reports.

The Court now proceeds to discuss the alternative psychosis disorder that has been addressed by the expert witnesses.

6.5 Paranoid psychosis The experts Aspaas and Tørrissen have assessed whether the defendant may have had a paranoid psychosis at the time of the reported acts. Paranoid psychosis (F22) is a more limited delusional disorder that is presented with six diagnostic criteria in the Green Book,

26.09.2012

67

Utskrift fra Lovdata

including the following: A. A delusion or set of related delusions, other than those listed as typically schizophrenic in criterion G1 (i) b or d for F20.0–F20.3 (i.e. other than completely impossible or culturally inappropriate) must be present. The commonest examples are persecutory, grandiose, hypochondriacal, jealous (zelotypic), or erotic delusions.

B. [...]

C. The general criteria for schizophrenia (F20.0-F20.3) are not fulfilled. [...]

Translated into Norwegian this means that the disorder is characterised by a delusion or a set of related delusions that should not be bizarre, exemplified, inter alia, by paranoid and grandiose delusions. Since the experts Husby and Sørheim believe the defendant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia with allencompassing delusions, they do not discuss this diagnosis. As already mentioned, they nonetheless make the remark that the defendant's marked flattening of affect is incompatible with a paranoid psychosis.

In their report, the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen present a SCID-1 interview, which is a structured interview under the parallel American diagnostic system DSM-IV. Below follows their assessment of paranoid psychosis found on pages 262–263: «As stated above, the expert witnesses have not found any psychotic symptoms. [...] He has had ideas of heightened selfworth, power and knowledge that may be reminiscent of what is observed in the case of delusional disorders. Not least the ideas concerning the Knights Templar appear peculiar. He has however rationalised this and has explained that it is a willed idea. The experts attach importance to the fact that the observee in police interviews and interviews with the experts is capable of arguing and presenting nuanced statements. He has a capacity for being corrected that is not found in persons with delusional disorders. It does not seem to be of interest to discuss grandiose ideas about his own finances, since income of a certain level has been documented in the course of the investigation.

Another important observation is that he has managed to keep his plans concealed from others. This is not very compatible with ideas of a psychotic nature, where precisely the urge to assert the perceived injustice will be prominent. The observee has demonstrated an unusually stable and good impulse control, which he also demonstrates during detention.

Clinically assessed, one does not find in the observee the psychotic nature that characterises delusions. There may be obvious reasons to apply the concept of flawed perception of reality to his extremist political views; however, as described above these are ideas he shares with a subculture that expresses the same opinions.

Issues concerning surveillance and possible somatic delusions have been discussed above. It is thus the experts' assessment that the observee does not have nor has had any delusional disorder.»

In the general diagnostic assessment of whether the defendant may have suffered from a psychotic disorder at the time of the reported acts, they present the following conclusion on pages 302–303 of their report: «As stated above, the experts have not assessed his ideas as being manifestations of psychotic thought processes, but as extreme political views, combined with the conscious disregard for opposing views. The experts assume the existence of an ideological subculture that shares the observee's ideological and political views.

Consequently, there are no grounds for a delusional disorder (F22.0 Paranoid psychosis).»

The experts Aspaas and Tørrissen interpreted the defendant's fear of surveillance by the Police Security Service (PST) and isolated instances of him using a face mask as exaggerated caution and fear of illness during the planning of the terrorist acts, and not as psychotic delusions. Contrary to the experts Husby and Sørheim, they have not perceived the defendant's use of the word «we» instead of «I» to be an identity disturbance, but an

26.09.2012

68

Utskrift fra Lovdata

expression of him intending to speak on behalf of likeminded persons.

In its statements of 23 April and 21 May, the Board of Forensic Medicine has questioned the validity of the defendant's answers to, inter alia, the SCID-1 interview, considering his tendency to answer strategically. In their introductory description of SCID-1, the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen have addressed this issue, writing that they, inter alia, have taken as a point of departure and have confronted the defendant with his earlier statements in police interviews, in conversations and in the compendium. Next, these statements have been «weighed against the clinical impression and the way in which he answers». Also in the introductory general remarks on page 12 of their report, they raise the question of whether the defendant in his conversations with them «has adapted himself to his knowledge at any given time of the case complex, the police investigation, the previous forensic psychiatric report, etc». Against this background, they have assessed and «compared his statements to the expert witnesses in February/March 2012 with what emerged during the early stages after his arrest (documented in a police interview recorded on DVD), as well as his statements to the health service and the earlier expert witnesses in July/August 2011».

Additionally, the questions of dissimulation and a possible false negative conclusion are discussed in connection with the diagnostic assessments on page 300 and in the supplementary report of 30 April 2012.

The Court agrees that the defendant's tendency to adapt his answers in tests and in his conversations with the experts may, considered in isolation, weaken the value of the observations of the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen. Notwithstanding this, the Court notes that as early as in the first conversation on 9 September 2011 with psychiatrist Arnhild Flikke, the defendant described himself as a «foot soldier», see the above quote. Flikke is a senior medical officer within the Specialist Health Service of Bærum Municipality, the District Psychiatric Centre (hereinafter DPS), and she has been a member of the «Ila Team» since 2007. Also in a police interview on 18 October 2011 did the defendant moderate statements in the manifesto that he has also cited during early police interviews as well as in conversations with the experts Husby and Sørheim. In the police interview he said, inter alia, that the way he had «described the Knights Templar, it is a glossy picture of the Knights Templar, but in practice the Knights Templar is in the process of being established», see the quote from this interview on page 82 of the report of the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen. Additionally, policemen who carried out the interviews of the defendant confirmed at the trial that they noted a certain toning down of the defendant's previous statements from the police interview on 18 October 2011, and a marked toning down from the police interviews in March 2012. It is furthermore clear that the defendant toned down the description of the Knights Templar and his own political role in his conversations with the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen, and also in his statement during the trial.

The Court believes that the circumstance that the defendant is capable of moderating his statements is also relevant diagnostic information. On pages 296–297 of their report, the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen describe the defendant's high opinion of, inter alia, «his own importance for the future of the country and Western Europe». Here, they draw a parallel with a condition that in specialist literature is termed «pseudologia fantastica», and which refers to conditions where a person with theatrical personality traits makes up stories that make them important. They write the following about the difference between persons with such personality traits and psychotic persons: «It is characteristic that these kinds of stories are toned down when the person concerned is confronted with facts or opposing views. In psychotic patients, the opposite is often observed; when they are confronted with ambiguities and improbabilities, their statements will become increasingly unclear and improbable, and when patients are subjected to pressure they may show signs of stress and psychological decompensation. «Pseudologia fantastica» is not a separate diagnosis in the diagnostic systems, but the phenomenon may provide a basis for personality diagnoses.»

Also other expert witnesses within psychiatry described at the trial how genuine delusions normally are defended by the patient in the case of resistance. Patients often turn

26.09.2012

69

Utskrift fra Lovdata

aggressive and angry or sulky and silent when their delusions are challenged. Overall, psychotic patients have limited capacity for moderation. There also seems to be agreement among these witnesses that a psychotic person hardly would manage to adapt during hourslong interviews in pressed situations. According to the information provided, the police interviews lasted for up to 11 hours. The defendant's statement at the trial also lasted for many hours every day for more than a week. If one disregards the contents of the defendant's statements, under the circumstances he gave evidence in an inconspicuous way. He gave the impression of being controlled and collected. He let himself be corrected and moderated, and he demonstrated a capacity for flexibility in various contexts.

Against this backdrop, the Court agrees with the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen's conclusion that the defendant's use of terminology and various statements including historical references about civil war, power takeover in Norway, ethnic cleansing, breeding institutions and genetic testing of our future regent can all be understood in a political context. The same goes for the use of the plural «we» as a reference to the defendant's fellow rightwing extremist peers. The defendant's periodic use of mouth mask and his feeling of being under surveillance seem also to have plausible explanations. No similar behaviour or statements by the defendant have subsequently been reported.

The prosecution has focussed on whether the defendant's conception about the Knights Templar can be regarded as psychotic delusions under the presumption that the organisation does not exist. Investigations have not produced any evidence to indicate that such an organisation exists.

The expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen write the following about the Knights Templar on page 295 of the report's diagnostic evaluation: «The expert witnesses take for a fact that militant movements sometimes develop a system of rank titles, uniforms, greetings, etc. Despite this, the description of the Knights Templar, and not least the uniform the observee has had made, is characterised as eccentric, theatrical and grandiose. The fact that he has deliberately conjured up a future vision can, nevertheless, not be understood as a sign of psychosis. In the opinion of the expert witnesses, he has all along known that the idea of the Knights Templar is a product of his own imagination.»

At the trial, the defendant maintained the basic features of the compendium's description of the founding and structure of the Knights Templar. Among other things, he explained that he met a Serbian war criminal in Liberia whom he later represented at the founding meeting in London in 2002. He also maintained that there were three single cells in Norway and approximately 15 to 80 in Europe, and that the cells have no contact with one another because of the risk of being detected by the intelligence service in the various countries.

The Court believes that the defendant may have various reasons for insisting on the existence of the Knights Templar. By anchoring the acts for which he is indicted in an alleged organisation, he can give others an impression of grandiosity and legitimacy and can thereby also help promote future recruitment. In addition to this, an alleged organisation can give rise to fear in the population, a motive which goes to the very core of the terrorism provision on which the indictment is based. Retracting what he has said about the Knights Templar, which forms such a vital part of the compendium, can ultimately appear to be psychologically or ideologically impossible.

Ever since the defendant was apprehended, he has been reluctant to answer questions about the Knights Templar, including questions about its supporters and foundation, despite the fact that other information has flowed from him like «water from a faucet», to use the words of the expert witness Husby. As mentioned above, he has also toned down his presentation of the organisation and significance of the members. During the compulsory observation, he did not focus on the Knights Templar according to the observation team from Dikemark. The Court is also of the opinion that these circumstances speak against concluding that the defendant carries a genuine psychotic conviction about the organisation's existence.

The expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen believe that the defendant suffers from

26.09.2012

70

Utskrift fra Lovdata

personality disorders, which they believe can explain a lot of his symptomatology. One may query whether these expert witnesses' interpretations of potentially psychotic symptoms were influenced by them having found, on possibly shaky grounds, such alternative explanation models.

The expert witnesses performed, inter alia on the basis of a SCID-II interview based on the parallel US diagnostic system, a thorough review of the special criteria for various personality disorders in ICD-10 and concluded that the defendant had the diagnoses «F60.8 Other specified personality disorders, narcissistic», and «F60.2 Dissocial personality disorder». The Board of Forensic Medicine stated in its letter of 31 May 2012 to Oslo District Court that it can not «see from the premises that it has been adequately discussed whether the observee from childhood and/or adolescence displayed firmly entrenched and persistent behaviour patterns which were expressed through rigid reactions to a broad range of personal and social situations».

Under the general criteria for personality disorders in the Green Book, the personality deviation must be stable and of long duration, «having its onset in late childhood or adolescence». In the US diagnostic system, from which the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder is taken, the time of onset is specified to «the beginning of early adulthood». The expert witnesses seem to agree that the personality deviation must have manifested itself before the age of 18 years. In their supplementary report, the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen elaborated on the examples of dissocial characteristics from the defendant's childhood, adolescence and early adulthood, maintaining their previous explanation for the manifestation of his narcissistic characteristics. At the trial, Aspaas specified that the narcissistic personality disorder was the main diagnosis.

The Court has not considered how developed and comprehensive the personality deviation must have been before the age of 18 years to satisfy the general criteria for a personality disorder in the Green Book. Beyond the methodological source of error as to interpretation now discussed, the diagnosing of personality disorders does not have any direct impact on the question of the defendant's criminal sanity. Nevertheless, the Court mentions that the diagnosis «F60.2 Dissocial personality disorder» found little support during the presentation of the other evidence. As will be discussed below, the diagnosis «F60.8 Other specified personality disorders, narcissistic», was however supported by therapeutic health personnel at Ila who where part of the specialist health service. Randi Rosenqvist also took note of the defendant's narcissistic personality characteristics.

Still the Court finds no grounds for disavowing the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen's assessments of the psychosis question on the grounds that the general criteria for personality disorders in ICD-10 have possibly not been met. Irrespective of whether the defendant meets the general criteria for a personality disorder, the Court takes for a fact that he displays both dissocial and narcissistic personality characteristics.

6.6 Other health personnel The Court now moves to account for the therapeutic and advisory health personnel's diagnostic assessments of the defendant, which are more or less consistent with the assessments of the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen.

The Court said initially that the defendant has not had any contact with the specialist health service for mental disorders prior to 22 July 2011. The medical records from his regular general physician do not contain information about mental disorders either, apart from some incidents of acute stress/situational imbalance with sleeplessness from 1998. The defendant underwent plastic nose surgery in 1999 because he wanted a «straight profile».

The Court relies on the medical examination where a blood sample was taken on 23 July 2011 between 01:30 and 02:00 hrs, reported on page 37 of Aspaas and Tørrissen's report.

The clinical state of the defendant was described as follows: «inconspicuous, but the observee has dilated pupils consistent with the effect of Ephedrine, which he informed us that he had taken. Dilated pupils can also be consistent with mental stress. Seems tired. The conclusion is: slightly under the influence».

26.09.2012

71

Utskrift fra Lovdata

The evaluation reported on page 38 states the following: «The defendant is calm during the examination. He explains things adequately and responds to all questions without any conspicuous hesitation. He cooperates adequately, except that he says that he does not wish his face to be photographed.»

Furthermore, the defendant has had regular contact with the prison health service at Ila Preventive Detention and Security Prison from the time he was remanded in custody on 26 July 2011. Neither the prison physician nor the psychiatric nurse found any signs of psychosis, either when he was admitted or later, according to the notes in the medical records referred to in the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen's report.

In September 2011, the prison health service referred the defendant to the specialist health service of Bærum District Psychiatric Centre (Bærum DPS), inter alia, to assess if there was any suicide risk. Arnhild Flikke, senior medical officer and psychiatrist, had her first talk with the defendant on 9 September 2011. In her notes from this first talk, included in the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen's report on page 148, she writes the following: «His political conceptions are extreme, but I do not consider that they represent any flawed perception of reality in a psychotic sense, based on my knowledge about common thoughts and ideas in rightwing extremist circles (Islam is seen as the external enemy and most politicians and journalists are seen as the internal enemy who must be defeated to save the nation). He appears capable of seeing that others will perceive his views as extreme.

He seems to think that his role in the development is important, but not that he is absolutely vital for the development, compare the statement that he sees himself as a foot soldier.»

During her talk with the defendant on 16 September 2011, Flikke did a number of tests, inter alia, SCID-II with personality disorders in mind, and found that he met the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder.

Flikke has had weekly talks with the defendant, of which ten talks alone with him and eight or nine talks together with Eirik Johannesen, a specialist psychologist, also at Bærum District Psychiatric Centre. At the trial, Flikke explained that she after each talk concluded that the defendant was not psychotic. She talked with the defendant about politics, the Knights Templar and his selfperception. She has also read parts of the compendium and seen the defendant's «propaganda video», without having observed any bizarre or other psychotic delusions. She explained that she was very surprised about the conclusion in the expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim's report and that she then made a thorough assessment of possible diagnoses. In a memo of 9 December 2011, quoted on page 150 of the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen's report, she writes, inter alia, the following: «1) Serious mental disorder. If one disregards a transient psychosis, I believe, based on the information I have gathered so far, that there are more indications which speak in favour of a delusional disorder than paranoid schizophrenia, if one is to take his views of society and his own potential role, as delusions. My conclusion is that I do not perceive his conceptions as psychotic but rather as an expression of rightwing extremism, and I do therefore not conclude with this diagnosis. [...]

Conclusion/action: Based on my assessment, he meets the criteria for a personality disorder dominated by dissocial and narcissistic characteristics, and I consequently conclude with these to diagnoses.»

Moreover, Flikke has said that after she received the report by the expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim, she decided to hire Johannesen, a specialist psychologist, to do independent examinations of the defendant. From 23 December 2011, Johannesen had a total of 20 talks with the defendant, of which more than half alone with him and the rest together with Flikke. Johannesen has also had talks with the defendant at Ila during the 10-week trial.

The talks between Johannesen and the defendant addressed, inter alia, the defendant's political views and his selfperception. In his assessment, following a talk on 27 January 2012, included in the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen's report on page 157,

26.09.2012

72

Utskrift fra Lovdata

Johannesen writes the following: Assessment/further treatment: The patient appears unchanged from last time and the suicide risk is still considered low. Still nothing has come up in our talk which would corroborate the patient suffering from an active psychosis disorder. The patient expresses a strong sense of paranoid and conspiratorial thinking, shows little emotionality in his communication and appears to be almost totally unaffected by the mass murders he has carried out. In the opinion of the undersigned, this can still be understood rather as a sign of the patient's probable personality disorders with the extensive use of primitive defence mechanisms to maintain a grandiose selfimage.

During our talks, there has been no indication that the patient meets the criteria for an axis 1 disorder.» (Psychosis is an axis 1 disorder.)

During the main hearing, Johannessen explained that his observations mainly coincide with those of the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen. He found neither bizarre nor other psychotic delusions. With the exception of how he speaks of his ideology, the defendant showed flexibility and the ability to talk in a nuanced way.

In addition to consultations with treating health personnel, as described above, Randi Rosenqvist has assessed the defendant and conversed with him on three occasions. On 18 August 2011, she wrote a memorandum based on the media coverage of the case and the staff's descriptions of the defendant, but without having examined him herself. In the memorandum, included on pages 161–162 in the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen's report, she writes that upon assessing his state of mind, she gave importance to: «the defendant's thorough preparations, ability to plan, good impulse control, ability to do «double bookkeeping»; he is able to sort what he wishes to go public about, and what he does not wish to announce until at a dramatic moment in time. This requires good cognitive functioning, the ability to judge what is worthwhile to disclose and what should be kept secret, and again, good impulse control. What is remarkable about A is, the way I see it now, his distinct narcissistic personality with grandiose delusions. He has also demonstrated the ability not to show empathy with victims; to which extent this indicates a fundamental relational disorder, pure dissociality or for instance a schizotype disorder, I would need more information to assess. In the information I have on A, there are no facts signalling psychotic functioning today, although how he regards himself indicates a rather flawed perception of reality.»

Following her first consultation with the defendant on 1 November 2011, rendered on pages 162–163 in the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen's report, [Dr.] Rosenqvist writes as follows: «Assessment: I do not find any signs of psychotic functioning. However, I am not certain that he speaks the truth, although he tries to give that impression. We might thus have a hypothesis that he redefines the information he receives on a psychotic basis and thus has a flawed perception of the reality in which he has lived. I find this farfetched. I find it more likely that he, like most of us, places information and experiences into the world view he has formed. Thus he has his own point of view confirmed. In this process he forms his own understanding, through which he consciously or unconsciously tries to manipulate the surroundings.»

During the main hearing, Rosenqvist explained that after having read the report from the expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim, she had another consultation with the defendant in which she made a more detailed assessment of the psychotic symptoms where they were described. She found the defendant's comments eccentric, but still not psychotic. In Rosenqvist's memorandum after this consultation on 19 December 2011, included on page 164 in the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen's report, she makes the following summary: «Summarized assessment: Based on the Head of Department's log and my own consultation with A, I find him to be in good mental shape. I perceive his deviant

26.09.2012

73

Utskrift fra Lovdata

comments as an expression of an extreme ideology. In no way as a psychotic perception of reality. However, the forensic psychiatric experts, who have had considerably more information on him than I have, will assess this.

We know, from history, many sects of religious or other ideological basis in which the members advocate notions of the world and the hereafter shared by few others. Such sects may be quite small or include many people. Although some of these sects may be based on a charismatic leader with delusions and experiences out of touch with reality, for instance based on epilepsy or transient toxic psychoses, this does not mean that all the members have delusions in psychiatric terms, or other serious psychopathology. We know that such sects seek internal confirmation, and may for a long time (generations) maintain notions in no way shared by society at large.

I believe that A is within such a system. It is unclear to me to which extent he has many people who share his opinions, but he has expressed to me himself that he has based a lot on the British, or rather English movement and [has] not sought contact with the Norwegians of the same ideology, although there are thousands of them, according to him. As long as he stays safe in this universe, we might say that he lives in a «bubble», but that he lives reasonably well in this «bubble».»

During the main hearing, Rosenqvist stated that she still did not assess the defendant's extreme thoughts as psychotic delusions, but rather as thoughts of grandeur. The last time Rosenqvist visited the defendant was in March 2012, and she still did not find any psychotic conceptions. Still, she did not disregard the possibility that the defendant might turn seriously ill if the «bubble» in which he lives, were to burst, so that he would have to fully comprehend the atrocious acts he has committed.

The Court remarks in closing that the police officers who conducted the long and numerous interviews with the defendant, did not seem to have reacted to his state of mind either. The police officer who did the sevenhourlong interview with the defendant on Utøya immediately after the arrest, writes e.g. in his closing remarks: «The accused spoke without problems throughout the conversation. He appeared perfectly lucid and reflected. The accused gave his statement in a coherent and detailed manner.»

Police officer Geir Egil Løken stated at the trial that his main impression of the defendant in court is the same as during the police interviews. The defendant was never at any time during the 220 hours of police interviews considered to be in need of health services in relation to the interviews.

The review shows that neither treating nor advisory health personnel have found signs of bizarre or other psychotic delusions in the defendant. Except for psychologist Eirik Johannessen, they have all examined him also prior to the first forensic psychiatric report was submitted and before he had access to the media. The Court finds that this unanimity provides solid support to the assessment made by the expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen that the defendant was not psychotic. As already mentioned, the defendant is a person who is more than happy to talk about the subjects that interest him, except for the Knights Templar.

6.7 Compulsory observation Oslo District Court decided, as mentioned above in section 6.2, that the defendant was to be subjected to compulsory psychiatric examination for up to four weeks, pursuant to the Penal Code section 167. For security reasons it was simultaneously decided that this examination should take place at Ila Prison and Detention Centre. The psychiatric experts Aspaas and Tørrissen had already asked for such an examination, whereas the psychiatric experts Husby and Sørheim, who had already submitted their statement, did not see any need for it.

The examination was done by an observation team from Oslo University Hospital, Department Dikemark, in the period from 29 February to 21 March 2012. In the final report from Dikemark, by the psychiatrist in charge, María Sigurjónsdóttir, included in expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen's statement on pages 165–181, the following is written about

26.09.2012

74

Utskrift fra Lovdata

the actual observation team: «The observation team was an interdisciplinarily composed group of authorized health personnel employed at the Regional Security Department Helse Sør-Øst [Health South-East], Dikemark, Oslo University Hospital. All members of the observation team have been employed with the Regional Security Department Helse Sør-Øst for some time and have participated in examinations of patients with violent behaviour, where the objective is to clarify whether the patients have psychoses, drug addiction issues and/or personality disorders. Everybody on the observation team participate in the treatment of patients admitted to the Department.

The observation team consisted of altogether 18 persons. Of these, there were 12 nurses (of whom nine were psychiatric nurses), three auxiliary nurses (of whom two with further studies in psychiatry), one clinical social worker, one psychologist and one psychiatrist. Everybody on the observation team also had further studies in various fields within mental health work in addition to their mentioned professional degrees.

The observation team's collective work experience in mental health care is extensive.

The observers of the observation team have worked in mental health care for an average of 21 years, (6 years – 34 years, median 19.5 years).» (Aspaas and Tørrissen pages 167–168.)

On the importance of the observation, the expert witnesses write the following on page 181: «Observation in an institution implies that the observee has been seen by qualified health personnel for three weeks. The observational basis is thus significantly broader than what may be achieved on the sole basis of conversations with the expert witnesses.

Onetoone conversations are mostly structured by the psychiatrists, whereas roundtheclock observation in an institution implies that he is seen in spontaneous, loosely organized everyday situations, such as general small talk, meals, watching TV, playing games. Besides, it has been possible to capture any possible reactions following police interviews and the conversations with the expert witnesses, as well as reactions to news and debate articles in the media on the 22 July case. The observation made by RSA Dikemark has thus provided the expert witnesses access to essential observational data that may not be obtained in any other manner. » As was heard in the statements of the participating health personnel at the trial, no signs of psychosis were found in the defendant during the observation. As regards his notions, the following is quoted from the final Dikemark report: «A significant part of the observee's verbal communication is characterized by the observee's presentation of his own political conviction. His discussion of this subject is not perceived to have deadlocked thought patterns since he demonstrates the ability to regulate and modify his own statements and arguments based on feedback from observers. The observee is able to take in comments from others and use this in further discussions. This happens without any display of exaggerated affect on his part around such a discussion, but a normal level of involvement.

The observee often specifies that he understands that others may have other interpretations or meanings, and that this may make others not share his political points of view. The observee has shown the ability of reality testing in that on several occasions, he has asked the observers on various topics of interest to him (including politics), and wondered whether what he thinks and believes has been credible or realistic. The observee has shown the ability to regulate his own statements and thoughts based on feedback given to him, or once the observers have given him more, and sometimes more nuanced, information on a topic he already had an opinion about.

The observee may have eccentric interpretations of concepts and phenomena, which the observers perceive to be adapted to his ideology. All words and expressions used by the observee are understood and have meaning to the observers.

The observee expresses his opinion to be that his political ideology is necessary in order

26.09.2012

75

Utskrift fra Lovdata

to understand his perception of his situation and the process he believes he is in. This implies great focus on himself and the political ideology he wishes to relay. At the same time, he often says that he understands how other people cannot quite follow his reasoning around some of his opinions, and that others may react with shortterm horror.

The observee says that the acts on 22 July were horrendous, but must be seen in a longer time perspective, up to 70 years.»

The Court finds no reason to go into further detail on the report's thorough description of the defendant's conduct and functioning, but mentions nevertheless that neither social nor cognitive functional impairment was observed, nor thought disturbances such as for instance neologisms.

Sigurdjónsdóttir stated at the trial that the observation team had found on the internet the concepts used by the defendant.

It cannot be ruled out that the defendant, helped by his cognitive functions, has been able to conceal psychotic symptoms during the entire observation period. The Court believes, however, that this possibility is so slight, especially when it comes to paranoid schizophrenia, that the Court can disregard it. The Court thus also finds that the observation of the defendant pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act section 167 provides solid supports to the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen's assessment that the defendant was not psychotic.

6.8 Summary The above review shows that we are faced with two teams of expert witnesses with qualitatively different diagnostic assessments of the defendant. Where the experts Husby and Sørheim find psychotic delusions, the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen find extreme political opinions, combined with conscious disregard for opposing views. The two teams of experts have consistently made different assessments of the general criteria of interest for schizophrenia in ICD-10, and on different grounds they have concluded that the defendant does not meet the criteria for paranoid psychosis.

Although none of the experts believe the defendant to be a borderline case, there seems to be agreement that he is «a special case», as the experts Aspaas and Tørrissen write to conclude their supplementary report. The experts Husby and Sørheim touch upon similar ideas when they in connection with the danger assessment described the defendant's «uncommon symptom profile» with a combination of affective flattening, persistent homicidal thoughts, solid delusions of a right to select victims and kill, combined with the lack of any identifiable cognitive impairment and with no disturbing sensory delusions like hallucinosis.

The Court itself is struck by the defendant's wordy presentation of his fanatic farright extremist attitudes mixed with pretentious historical parallels and infantile symbolism. His conceptions are accompanied by an unfettered and cynical justification of the acts of violence as being «cruel, but necessary». A recurring question during the trial has furthermore been the importance of the reported acts for the diagnostication. However, as was pointed out during several of the testimonies given by the expert witnesses, glorification of violence or extreme acts of violence do not form part of the ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for psychosis.

Of all the health professionals that have assessed the defendant's mental health, it is only the experts Husby and Sørheim who have found psychosis. The Court has assessed the possibility of the defendant having being able to hide any psychotic symptoms by means of his cognitive functions. The evidence presented during the trial does however provide little support for such a possibility, which in any case would not explain why the health personnel providing treatment and advice at Ila did not find any psychotic symptoms before the first forensic psychiatric report was presented and the ban on media access was lifted. The Court believes that the diagnostic disagreement is mainly due to differing interpretations of similar observations; however with the added fact that the defendant gradually has moderated his statements from when the acts were committed and until the trial was concluded.

What distinguishes Husby and Sørheim's diagnostic interpretations from those of the others is primarily that they refrain from assessing the defendant's extreme statements and

26.09.2012

76

Utskrift fra Lovdata

use of concepts in the light of the farright extremist subculture of which he claims to be a part. With respect to this, the Court makes reference to the comments to the general criteria for schizophrenia in the Green Book on page 65, where there is an express warning against «falsepositive assessments, especially where culturally or subculturally influenced modes of expression and behaviour or a subnormal level of intelligence, are involved». Professor Malt stated that on a general basis, there is reluctance to diagnosing ideas concerning politics, religion and love. In addition, the interpretations of the experts Husby and Sørheim, as already mentioned by the Court, seem to be founded on an application of central fundamental criteria for schizophrenia that is not common in scientific or clinical practice.

Although the defendant is a special case, there is no basis in sources of law for departing from the recognised diagnostic criteria for psychosis.

It falls outside the scope of the law's object of proof to decide whether the defendant's gruesome acts of terrorism have a more profound psychological cause. Any such causal relationships are not covered by a criteriabased diagnostic system and they thus fall outside of the mandate of the expert witnesses. On its part, the Court refrains from engaging in such assessments, which in any case would have to be speculative. The Court still assumes that the defendant's capacity to carry out the reported acts may partially be explained by a combination of fanatic rightwing extremist ideology, the intake of performanceenhancing substances and possible autosuggestion in combination with pathological or deviant personality traits.

Upon an overall assessment, the Court finds it has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant was not psychotic at the time the crimes were committed, cf. the Penal Code, section 44. Consequently, the defendant shall be punished for his acts.

7. The fixing of the sentence It is stated in the indictment that the prosecuting authority made the reservation that it might submit a plea for punishment. At the trial, the prosecutors submitted a petition in the alternative for preventive detention. The Court assumes that the defendant in these circumstances can be sentenced to punishment even though the prosecuting authority principally has brought proceedings pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act, section 2 No. 1 concerning commitment to compulsory mental health care.

The defendant is criminally sane and shall be sentenced to punishment. In the case of a violation of the Penal Code, section 147a, the main rule of the Penal Code is that a prison sentence shall be imposed. The maximum sentence is 21 years of imprisonment.

Imprisonment is a sentence for a specific term, where the person convicted shall be released when the specified time has been served.

When imprisonment is deemed to be insufficient to protect society, a sentence of preventive detention may be imposed instead of a sentence of imprisonment, cf. the introductory part of the Penal Code section 39c. In addition to the basic requirement concerning society's need for protection, the requirements in the said provision's no. 1 or no.

2 must be met. It is alternative no. 1 that is of interest in the case at hand. This alternative requires a serious crime among those described therein to have been committed. In addition there must be an imminent risk that the offender will again commit such a serious crime. The risk of a repeat offence must be serious and real, and it is to be assessed on the basis of the situation at the time of the delivery of the judgment.

The Court is in no doubt that both requirements in section 39c no. 1 are fulfilled.

The violation of the Penal Code section 147a by means of murder and attempted murder is among the crimes that can lead to a sentence of preventive detention.

Furthermore, at the time of the delivery of the judgment there is an imminent risk that the defendant will commit new murders and serious acts of violence. The Court makes reference to the fact that the defendant believes that the murders at the Government District and at Utøya were legitimate acts, and that extreme violence is a necessary means to achieve his political goals. The defendant has in court also related his alternative plans, like blowing up the Royal Palace and newspaper editorial offices, and killing journalists at the SKUP conference. The murders at the Government District, the murders at Utøya and the

26.09.2012

77

Utskrift fra Lovdata

defendant's plans demonstrate the extreme violence he has the will and capacity to carry out.

The defendant has furthermore stated that there will be more terror attacks; this is also written in his compendium. The thought of extreme violence and murder is evidently stimulating to the defendant. This was clearly seen in court when he described how he had planned to kill Gro Harlem Brundtland by decapitation. The defendant seemed excited during the description and gave the impression of enjoying telling about it. In its assessment of the danger, the Court has also attached importance to the defendant having demonstrated a capacity for planning the acts of terrorism without being discovered.

The Court also makes reference to the fact that the courtappointed expert witnesses Aspaas and Tørrissen on page 308 of their report conclude that there is a «high risk of serious acts of violence in the future», and in connection with this they make reference to the defendant expressing that violence and terror are necessary to have his extreme political views prevail. The courtappointed expert witnesses Husby and Sørheim also concluded in their report that the risk of future violence was very high (page 241). When deciding what importance to attach to the assessment made by the latter experts, it must however be taken into consideration that their danger assessment is based on the precondition of psychotic delusions.

The basic requirement of protection of society is linked to the risk of a repeat offence, but when assessing the need for such protection the perspective must be turned towards the future, cf. Rettstidende [Norwegian Supreme Court Law Reports] 2007 page 187.

There is no doubt that a sentence of imprisonment based on ordinary principles of sentencing in the case at hand would have been set at the maximum sentence under the law; 21 years of imprisonment.

The defendant has, after several years of planning, carried out a bomb attack aimed at the central government administration and thus also at the country's democratic institutions. He has killed 77 persons, most of whom were youths who were mercilessly shot face to face.

The defendant subjected a large number of persons to acute mortal danger. Many of those affected have sustained considerable physical and/or psychological injuries. The bereaved and next of kin are left with unfathomable grief. The material damage is enormous. The cruelties of the defendant's acts are unparalleled in Norwegian history.

It follows from the Supreme Court's practice that it takes a lot to assume that such a long sentence for a specific term is not considered sufficient to protect society against the danger a convicted person represents at the time of the delivery of the judgment, cf. Rettstidende [Norwegian Supreme Court Law Reports] 2003 page 1778 para. 19. Notwithstanding this, the Court is in no doubt that also the basic requirement for preventive detention is fulfilled in this special case.

If the defendant is to serve a 21-year prison sentence without release on probation, he will be 53 years old at the time of his release. Even though 21 years is a very long sentence, the Court finds it improbable that the element of time per se will reduce the risk of a repeat offence. At the time of release the democracy that the defendant wants to abolish, will still exist. Norway will still have inhabitants of different ethnic backgrounds, different cultures and different religions. The defendant expressed in court that he wants to continue his political struggle behind the prison walls. After having served his sentence, the defendant will most probably have the will and capacity to carry out many and very brutal murders.

The experts Aspaas and Tørrissen, who believe the defendant suffers from personality disorders, write on page 309 of their statement that «[t]he kind of personality pathology that has been found is not very accessible to therapy. Factors that worsen the prognosis of violence will be close contact with environments that acknowledge and support the observee's political ideology and views on political violence». The way the Court sees it, a similar prognosis must be assumed even if the defendant's personality were not to fulfil the fundamental diagnostic criteria for personality disorder, being rather the manifestation of deviant personality traits. This means that the defendant also after having served a 21-year prison sentence will be a very dangerous man. Against this background, the Court is of the view that the requirements for imposing a sentence of preventive detention are fulfilled, and thus believes that a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed.

26.09.2012

78

Utskrift fra Lovdata

A sentence of preventive detention can be imposed for a term that should not exceed 15 years and that cannot exceed 21 years, cf. the Penal Code section 39e. On application by the prosecuting authority, the Court may upon the expiry of the fixed term extend the preventive detention by 5 years at a time. The majority of the Parliament's Standing Committee on Justice stated in the Recommendation to the Odelsting No. 34 (1996â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1997) page 22 that ÂŤa sentence imposing preventive detention shall not be for a shorter term than what the term of an unconditional prison sentence would be [...]Âť. The Court finds it clear that in the case at hand, a sentence of 21 years of preventive detention must be imposed. Considering the murders and attempted murders committed by the defendant, in conjunction with the risk of a repetition of such crimes, society must in the case at hand employ the maximum protection admitted under the law. When determining the sanction, no emphasis is given to the fact that the defendant has acknowledged having committed the criminal acts.

In addition to the maximum term, the Court is of the opinion that a minimum period must be determined. The significance of the minimum period is that a release on probation pursuant to the Penal Code, section 39f, cannot take place prior to its expiry. The minimum period cannot exceed ten years, cf. the Penal Code, section 39e second subsection. It follows from what is stated above concerning society's need for protection that the minimum period must be set to ten years.

8. Costs of the case In their plea, in the alternative, for punishment, the prosecutors have not included a demand for costs to be imposed. Since the Court nonetheless may impose costs in case of a conviction, the Court shall briefly note that the defendant neither today nor in the future will have the financial capacity to pay costs. The Court makes reference to the presentation of his financial situation at the time of his arrest in point 3.2. After his arrest, the defendant has not had any income. The Court makes further reference to the fact that the defendant's serving of the sentence of preventive detention will severely limit his possibilities of income. Even if he were to receive income while serving his sentence, already claims against the defendant for reimbursement of compensations paid through the state compensation scheme for victims of violent crime will far exceed any such income. Consequently, costs are not imposed; cf. section 437 third subsection of the Criminal Procedure Act. The judgment is unanimous.

Conclusion of the judgment A, born *.*.1979, is sentenced for violation of the Penal Code section 147a first subsection paras. a) and b), cf. the Penal Code sections 148 first subsection first penalty alternative and 233 first and second subsections, and 233 first and second subsections, cf. section 49, and the Penal Code section 147a first subsection para. b), cf. sections 233 first and second subsections, and 233 first and second subsections, cf. section 49, all seen in conjunction with the Penal Code section 62, to preventive detention pursuant to the Penal Code section 39c no. 1, for a term of twentyone (21) years and a minimum period of ten (10) years, cf. the Penal Code section 39e first and second subsections.

From the said term and the said minimum period there shall be a deduction of four hundred and fortyfive (445) days for time spent in custody.

Annexure “C”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY NSC Case #: ___________ Oslo District Crt #: 11-188627MED-OTIR/05 In the Application of: LARA JOHNSTONE

Application for Review

In the matter between: OSLO DISTRICT COURT

First Respondent

KINGDOM OF NORWAY

Second Respondent

ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK

Third Respondent

VICTIMS FAMILIES

Fourth Respondent

NOTICE OF MOTION: Application for REVIEW and DECLARATORY ORDER: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the applicant intends to apply for leave to review against parts of the judgement by Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Fagdommer: Arne Lyng; Meddommere: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012 (herein after referred to as the ―Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement‖).

Please take notice that the applicant intends to apply to this court for an order in the following terms:

{I} REVIEW ORDERS REQUESTED: The following ‗Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement‘ decisions are reviewed: [A.1] Set Aside the Judgements ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’ (pg.671): 6.2 De sakkyndiges arbeid og konklusjoner

6.2 The committee's work and conclusions

[..] Tiltalte har anført at han må frifinnes på grunn av nødrett fordi han gjennomførte «preventive» angrep for å nå sine politiske mål, slik disse er redegjort for ovenfor i pkt.

3.1. Til denne anførselen vil retten kort bemerke at verken straffelovens bestemmelser om nødrett eller internasjonale menneskerettigheter, som tiltalte også

[..] The defendant has argued that he should be acquitted because of necessity because he performed "preventive" attack to achieve their political goals, as they are described above in section 3.1. To this argument, the court will briefly note that neither the criminal law provisions on necessity or international human rights, which defendant also claims, allows the

1

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120824_nvb-judmnt?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage

påberoper seg, tillater drap av statsansatte, politisk engasjerte ungdommer eller andre for å fremme ekstreme politiske målsettinger.

Anførselen kan åpenbart ikke føre frem.

killing of government, politically active young people or others to promote extreme political objectives. Argument can obviously did not succeed.

[A.2] Set Aside Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.

The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate and plausibly requires submittal of Further Evidence.

[A.3] If Defendant refuses to cooperate with Further Evidence proceedings; an order to change his plea to ‘guilty’; and/or ‘Non-Precedent’ Setting Declaratory Order In the event that the Accused declines to cooperate with the court to subpoena the relevant ‗Further Evidence‘ experts the Accused based their objective and subjective necessity conclusions upon; to issue (a) an order that the Accused plea be changed to ‗guilty‘, since clearly the Defendant does not subjectively believe his ‗Necessity‘ defence, if he refuses to uphold his alleged subjective belief in his ‗necessity motivated criminal act‘ for the court to objectively and subjectively test his necessity defence evidence; and/or (b) a declaratory order that the Defendant‘s apathetic failure to uphold his demand that the court objectively and subjectively test his necessity defence evidence, not be set as a precedent for other political activists to be denied their necessity rights for a court to objectively and subjectively test their evidence.

[A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a ‘Non-Precedent Setting’ Declaratory Order If the failure of Justice2 Irregularity3 of the court to provide the Defendant with an impartial objective and subjective test of his necessity defence, and if the Defendants evidence of guilt is so conclusive or overwhelming that the court can with reasonable certainty say that, without the irregularity or defect, the same decision would have inevitably been reached; to issue a Declaratory Order that the denial of an objective and subjective test of the Defendant‘s necessity defence in this matter; should not set a precedent for other political 2

The term does not merely apply to manifest departures in court from the rules and principles governing the conduct of proceedings before a judicial officer, but also the irregular obtaining of a plea of guilty in the absence of the magistrate. The further overall requirement is that a failure of justice must have resulted from the alleged irregularity or illegality. If however, the court of appeal is satisfied that the accused has been actually and substantially prejudiced by an irregularity or defect, it is difficult to see how it can avoid the conclusion that there has been a failure of justice (R v Rose 1937 A.D 467 at 477; R v Matsego 1956 (3) S.A 411 (A.D) at 418, etc).

3 Irregularity: Where a Mistake of Law is fundamental in the sense that a lower court has declined to exercise the function entrusted to it by statute and, as a result of such conduct, a party has been denied the right to a fair hearing, such error may constitute an irregularity.

2

activists or common law citizens who plead to necessity, to be denied an impartial objective and subjective test of the evidence for and against their necessity defence.

[B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges4, as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5)5 principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom)6 principles: Complaint against Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media). (PDF7)

[C] The respondents who oppose this application are ordered jointly and severally to pay their own costs in terms of this application.

{II} GROUNDS FOR REVIEW: The application for review is based on the grounds of (A) Irregularities8 & Illegalities in the Proceedings before the Oslo District Court: in terms of (1) A Failure of Justice9 and Failure of a True and Correct Interpretation of the Facts10; (2) Judicially Un-Investigated Facts11; (3) Failure of Application of Mind12 and (4) Rejection of Admissible or Competent Evidence: (i) Prosecutor & Judges failure to examine objective and subjective necessity test; and (ii) Courts denial of due process to applicants Habeus Mentem and Amicus Curiae applications13.

4

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/secr-supv-comm-judges.html Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decisioin-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf 6 The rule of law requires legislation (or judgements or court officials decision-making) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom).

Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 7 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120530_tilsynsutvalget_arntzen?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage 8 Irregularity: Where a Mistake of Law is fundamental in the sense that a lower court has declined to exercise the function entrusted to it by statute and, as a result of such conduct, a party has been denied the right to a fair hearing, such error may constitute an irregularity.

9 If the court is satisfied that an irregularity was committed in the court a quo, it becomes the duty of the court to decide whether, on the evidence unaffected by the irregularity, proof exists beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. (Schreine J.A. quoted in S v Zulu, 1967 (4) S.A 499 (T)).

In S v Tuge 1966 (4) SA 565 (A.D) at 568, Holmes JA expressed the ‗failure of justice‘ test as follows: the court hearing the appeal must consider, on the evidence, unaffected by the irregularity or defect, that there is proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If not, there is a resultant failure of justice (This test has subsequently been applied in a myriad of cases, such as Twigger v Starweave (Pty) Ltd 1969 (4) sa 369 (N), etc.).

The learned judge of appeal pointed out in S v Yusuf 1968 (2) SA 52 (A.D) at 57 that the advantage of this test is its directness of thinking as well as in its application of a traditional legal concept, namely, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

10 In S v Ndala 1996 (1) 218 (C) 224 d-g, the court held that if the right of an Accused to a true and correct interpretation of the proceedings has, prima facie, been irrevocably infringed and such an infringement is brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, the court must intervene.

11 In S v Roux 1974 (2) SA 452 (N) 455 A, the court held that the power of a Court of Appeal to hear further evidence stems from the fact that it is neither in the interests of the administration of justice nor in the interests of legal certainty that questions of fact which have already been judicially investigated and pronounced upon should be re-opened and amplified or supplemented, and vice versa.

12 A mistake of law per se is not an irregularity, but its consequences amount to a gross irregularity where a judicial officer, although perfectly well intentioned and bona fide, does not direct his mind to the issue before him and so prevents the aggrieved party from having his case fully and fairly determined (Goldfields Investment, Ltd. V City Council of Johannesburg, 1938 T.P.D. 551; Local Road Transportation Board v Durban City Council 1965 (1) S.A. 586 (A.D.) at 598A-C).

13 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/oslo-district-court.html 5

3

[A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity.

Judgement provides no details of any Norwegian or International specific necessity criminal provision which specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity.14 [A.1.b] Necessity Judgement Ignores that Criminal Necessity provisions do not prohibit the killing of Government Officials in case of objective and subjective Necessity.

Applicant is unaware of any International or Norwegian specific necessity criminal provision which specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity.

[A.1.c] Necessity Judgement’s Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law.

Necessity criminal provisions do not specifically allow or disallow the killing of government or politically active young people. Necessity criminal provisions provide for an objective and subjective test that examines each alleged criminal act to objectively and subjectively determine whether necessity existed within the particular criminal act‘s relevant circumstances.

[A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant’s Necessity Defence: The court, prosecution and defence counsel failed to conduct the required subjective and objective tests [LE-2012-76983 Eidsivating Appeal – Judgment of 29 May 201215] to determine (I) objectively whether the defendant‘s claims – simplistically rephrased as - ‗Titanic Europe is on a demographic/immigration collision course with Islam Iceberg‘; and (II) secondly whether

the

defendant

subjectively

perceived

the

Titanic

Europe/Islam

Iceberg

circumstances this way.

14

LAW-1998-03-20-10-§ 5: Forskrift om sikkerhetsadministrasjon | Regulations relating to security management allows for ―security breaches without criminal liability if the terms of the principle of necessity or self defence in criminal law law § 47 or § 48 is met.‖ 15 In LE-2012-76983 Eidsivating Appeal – Judgment of 29 May 2012, an Eritrean man was accused of several Perjury related Immigration offences to help his sister to come to Norway. He admitted the facts, but claimed necessity. In court he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal suspended the appeal to test his conviction on one point (whether the court a quo had seriously enquired into his necessity defence).

The court agreed with the Defendant‘s argument that asserted that the court a quo had not considered the circumstances that were invoked as the basis for the existence of a principle of necessity situation. The judgement stated that it is clear that ―the courts statement of reasons does not show that the court has considered this argument. Thus it is also clear that the Court‘s statement of reasons in so far are inadequate.‖ It would appear that Norwegian law has both a subjective and objective enquiry test into the necessity defence, which is similar to South African law; namely to test whether objectively there was a situation of necessity, and secondly whether subjectively the defendant sincerely believed there was a real situation of necessity thereby motivating his conduct.

4

If Defendant subjectively views Europe metaphorically as ‗Titanic Europe‘ then an objective test by means of relevant expert witness testimony and vigorous cross examination of such experts, would need to determine: (a) Is Islam an Iceberg or a mirage/illusion on the horizon? (b) If an iceberg: Is Titanic Europe unsinkable or an icebreaker? (c) If not: how large, how far, how deep is Islam Iceberg and if moving, how fast, in what direction? (d) What is the distance between Titanic Europe and Islam Iceberg and at what speeds are they moving towards impending collision? (e) Is collision inevitable based on current speed, current and course; or is there still time for altering course and speed; and if so, how much time, before collision is inevitable? (f) Subjective Reasonableness Test: If an ‗African nationalist‘ passenger on Titanic Africa‘s subjective reality is that the collision of Titanic Africa‘s 770 million passengers with the Greedy Colonial Europe Iceberg is inevitable in the absence of drastic alteration of course and speed within ‗for example: 10 000 minutes‘; but Titanic Africa‘s ‗Media PR brainwashed Captain‘ captain and crew all mistakenly believe Titanic Africa is an unsinkable icebreaker and the Colonial Europe Iceberg is a tall ship on the horizon; and the only message the ‗Media PR brainwashed Captain‘ listens to is ‗If it Bleads, it Leads‘ dead bodies; would an objectively reasonable military minded European / Arab / Latin American / nationalist individual advise the African nationalist passenger to (i) sacrifice 77 Colonial Europe passengers to awaken 770 million Titanic African passengers to the urgency of demanding the captain immediately drastically alter course and speed before the point of imminent collision is reached, or (ii) focus their energy on their own liferaft and make peace with the impending death of Titanic Africa‘s ignorant and unprepared 770 million?

[A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate It is clear that the Court's statement of reasons does not show the results of the courts objective and subjective enquiry into the Defendant‘s claim of necessity. Thus, it is also clear that the Court's statement of reasons, are inadequate.

5

[A.1.f] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Clarification Upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was insufficient renders the Judgements Conclusions inadequate.

The Judgement fails to disclose Norwegian law‘s Onus of Proof requirements in a case of necessity: i.e. upon which party – Defendant or State - does the Onus of Proof lie in case of Necessity? In South Africa, the proof in a defense of necessity, ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, lies on the State. In the absence of the State ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, the accused claim of necessity stands.

[A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent The Court's statement of reasons does not show the results of the courts objective and subjective enquiry into the Defendant‘s claim of necessity. Thus, it is also clear that the Court's statement of reasons, are not only inadequate, but if not corrected, would set a bad precedent, encouraging other courts to deny necessity defendants their rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity defence.

[A.1.h] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test For example: Subjectively speaking as a ‗European Indigenous Militant Nationalist‘: Saving the lives of 770 million of your fellow ‗European state‘ citizens is not an ‗extreme political objective‘; but a ‗human rights objective‘.

Whereas subjectively speaking as an honourable ‗End Civilisation Linkolian-Primitivist EcoFeminist‘: Informing 770 million European industrial civilisation human parasites destroying the planets ecological habitat of Titanic Europe‘s impending collision with the Peak Oil and NNR Iceberg could be a ‗Decisive Ecological Warfare16 Wild Law17 objective‘.

Put differently: In the absence of a broader ecological perspective, a reasonable objective assessment of the left vs. right wing parasite leeching political breeding and resource war blame game would conclude that one man‘s freedom fighter is another man‘s terrorist; similarly one man‘s ‗extreme political objective‘ can be another man‘s ‗human rights objective‘.

16

Decisive Ecological Warfare: http://deepgreenresistance.org/dew/ Wild Law is a new legal theory and growing social movement. It proposes that we rethink our legal, political, economic and governance systems so that they support, rather than undermine, the integrity and health of the Earth. http://www.wildlaw.org.au/ 17

6

[A.1.i] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test; and is a Masculine (Reason and Logic) Insecurity Human Farming18 Kaffir19 Legislation’ Social Trap20. Put simply: a Left vs.

Right Wing Blame Game Parasite Leeching Polarization – not a Matriarchal Ecological and Psychological Integrity Root Cause Problem Solving – conclusion.

The Myth that Economic and Political Solutions Can Solve Any Problem21 From a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant.22 A Matriarchal Radical Problem Solving Accountability Enquiry would have examined both the underlying ecological reality environment, and the underlying psychological integrity environment of the dispute between the defendant and the victims.

A healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non23 for all other constitutional rights; similarly a psychological integrity environment of philosophical radical transparency courageous truth searching radical honesty relationships that inforlve sincere forgiveness is a sine qua non24 for healthy, transparent relationships that result in the co-creation of a code of conduct that enables non-violent honest sincere resolutions to disagreements.

18

Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement: http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc Radical Honoursty Definitions of Kaffir are not Racial, but Behavioural: For Example: * ‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition: Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroachprolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc. * ‘Kaffir Etymology’: Original Etymological Definition for ‗Kaffir‘: The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F-R ―to cover‖. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and ―cover up‖ the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as ―Kuffar.‖ Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning ―a person who hides or covers‖; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth.

20 The term social trap was first introduced to the scientific community by John Platt's 1973 paper in American Psychologist[1], building upon the concept of the "tragedy of the commons" in Garrett Hardin's pivotal article in Science[2], Platt and others in the seminar applied behavioral psychology concepts to actions of people operating in social traps. By applying the findings of basic research on "schedules of operant reinforcement" (B.F. Skinner 1938, 1948, 1953, 1957; Keller and Schoenfeld, 1950), Platt recognized that individuals operating for short-term positive gain ("reinforcement") had a tendency to over-exploit a resource, which led to a long-term overall loss to society. [1] (Platt, J. (1973) Social Traps, American Psychologist, 28, 641-65) [2] Hardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, 162, 1243-1248 21 Economic and Political Solutions Can Solve Any Problem: Myth: Through enlightened economic and political policies and initiatives at the national and global levels, we will overcome all obstacles to global industrialism and enable a continuously improving industrialized lifestyle for our ever-increasing global population.

Reality: Unfortunately, the fundamental cause underlying our predicament is ecological—everincreasing NNR scarcity—it is not economic or political. The economic and political issues that we address and attempt to resolve are merely manifestations of our predicament—they are symptoms, not the disease.

Since none of the economic and political expedients that we employ to solve these problems can create additional NNRs—which are the primary enablers of our industrialized way of life—our economic and political ―solutions‖ are irrelevant.

– Scarcity, by Chris Clugston (http://www.nnrscarcity.com/) 22 In fact, from the broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant.

Because the underlying cause associated with our transition from prosperity to austerity is ecological (geological), not economic or political, our incessant barrage of economic and political ―fixes‖ – fiscal and monetary ―stimulus‖ – is misguided and inconsequential. Our national economies are not ―broken‖; they are ―dying of slow starvation‖ for lack of sufficient economically viable NNR inputs.

• Our industrial lifestyle paradigm, which is enabled by enormous quantities of finite, nonreplenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs, is unsustainable – actually, physically impossible – going forward.

• Global humanity‘s steadily deteriorating condition will culminate in self-inflicted global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050. We will not accept gracefully our new normal of ever-increasing, geologically-imposed austerity; nor will we suffer voluntarily the horrifically painful population level reductions and material living standard degradation associated with our inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm.

- Scarcity is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of the realities, choices, and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing nonrenewable natural resource (NNR) scarcity. NNRs are the fossil fuels, metals, and nonmetallic minerals that enable our industrialized existence.

Scarcity is also the story of a species, Homo sapiens, whose superior intellect should have caused it to eschew natural resource utilization behavior through which lower order species often experience population ―irruptions‖ followed by ―die-offs‖. No such luck… Scarcity will enable you to make sense of a world that is experiencing the most profound paradigm shift in human history.

– Scarcity, by Chris Clugston (http://www.nnrscarcity.com/) 23 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7383.pdf 24 Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton http://jus-sanguinis-ror.blogspot.com/2012/01/practicing-radical-honesty-being.html 19

7

A sustainable democracy or republic would only allow citizens who live below the nations carrying capacity in terms of procreation and consumption, the licence to vote. Any citizen whose consumption and/or procreation footprint is above the nations carrying capacity footprint is effectively robbing future generations of the nations resources that should be conserved and preserved for their future. We don‘t give robbers the code to the nations bank safes; so why do we give citizen ecological rapists and robbers a licence to vote and bribe politicians to rob future generations resources?

The Kaffir Matrix Court system is founded on ‗Kaffir Legislation‘: Inalienable Right to Breed and Vote: Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‗Right to Breed‘ and ‗Right to Vote‘, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence.

The Masculine Insecurity Human Farming Kaffir25 Legal Matrix avoid requiring voting26 and breeding licences; because (A) their endorsement of the Inalienable Right to Vote, or Universal Suffrage for the Ignorant is their road to centralisation of power and tyranny27; and (B) their endorsement of the Inalienable Right to Breed, is their endorsement of the Economic and Military Cannon Fodder28 - Iron Mountain29 ‗War is a Racket30 - Tragedy of the Commons31 use of women as human-factory-farming-cannon-fodder-brood-sows for their Kaffir Matrix profit from the Human Farming32 Tragedy of the Commons33 breeding war34 resource wars35.

[B] Judgement’s Transparency Failure violates Aarhus Convention principles and public accountability impartiality principles.

25

Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement: http://youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A ―In order to achieve this goal [of world domination], we must introduce [the right to vote] universal suffrage beforehand, without distinctions of class and wealth. Then the masses of people will decide everything; and since it [universal suffrage] is controlled by us we will achieve through it the absolute majority, which we could never achieve if only the educated and possessing classes had the vote.‖ -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 10th Sitting, Wallstein Pub. House, ISBN 3-89244-191-x, p. 60 27 ―In order to achieve this goal [of world domination], we must introduce [the right to vote] universal suffrage beforehand, without distinctions of class and wealth. Then the masses of people will decide everything; and since it [universal suffrage] is controlled by us we will achieve through it the absolute majority, which we could never achieve if only the educated and possessing classes had the vote.‖ -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 10th Sitting, Wallstein Pub. House, ISBN 3-89244-191-x, p. 60 28 The organizing principle of any society is for war. The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers. . . . War readiness accounts for approximately a tenth of the output of the world's total economy.‖ For Stone – and many others – it was clear that the government was a co-existence of various interest groups: the oil industry; the pharmaceutical industry; but mainly, the military-industrial complex… warmongers. http://www.philipcoppens.com/ironmountain.html 29 Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace http://www.teachpeace.com/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf 30 War is a Racket, by USMC General Smedley Bulter http://warisaracket.org/dedication.html 31 In this riddle, the lily pond has a potentially virulent lily that apparently will double in size each day. If the lily grows unchecked it will cover the entire pond in 30 days, choking off all other forms of life in the water by the time it covers the entire pond. If a skeptic waited until 50% of the pond was covered before taking any remedial action to save the pond, when would he act? The answer: on the 29th day of the month! But by then, it would be too late.

[See also: World Pop. Balance: Understanding Exponential Growth: Bacteria in a Bottle: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/exponential-growth-tutorial/bacteria-exponential-growth.html 32 Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement: http://youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A 33 In this riddle, the lily pond has a potentially virulent lily that apparently will double in size each day. If the lily grows unchecked it will cover the entire pond in 30 days, choking off all other forms of life in the water by the time it covers the entire pond. If a skeptic waited until 50% of the pond was covered before taking any remedial action to save the pond, when would he act? The answer: on the 29th day of the month! But by then, it would be too late.

[See also: World Pop. Balance: Understanding Exponential Growth: Bacteria in a Bottle: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/exponential-growth-tutorial/bacteria-exponential-growth.html 34 ―We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.‖ - Jason G. Brent, Former Judge and author of Humans: An Endangered Species http://www.jasonbrent.weebly.com/ 35 ―We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.‖ - Jason G. Brent, Former Judge and author of Humans: An Endangered Species http://www.jasonbrent.weebly.com/ 26

8

{3} OPPOSING THE APPLICATION: Take notice further that if you intend opposing this application you are required (a) to notify the applicant in writing on or before the 10 September 2012 (b) and within fifteen days after you have so given notice of your intention to oppose the application, to file your answering affidavits, if any; and further that you are required to appoint in such notification an address (and email address) at which you will accept notice and service of all documents – per email service - in these proceedings.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER THAT the applicant is representing herself Pro Se as ‗paralegal of record‘ in this matter and appoints the address, including email address of P O Box 5042, George East, 6539, Tel: +27 (44) 870 7239; Cell: (071) 1954; Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za, as the address at which she will accept notice and service of all documents/email notices, in these proceedings.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER THAT the applicant shall approach various Norwegian Universities and International Ecological Concerned Organisations for Pro Bono Assistance of Counsel support in this matter; but obviously cannot guarantee that any such organisations shall provide such Pro Bono Assistance of Counsel.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER THAT -

Respondents are called upon to show why the relief sought by the applicant should not be granted;

-

the Oslo District Court is required to dispatch a copy of the record of the decisions listed in paragraph {I}[A.1] and {I}[A.2] above, together with any reasons for their decisions, to the registrar of this court within 15 days of the service of this application and to notify the applicants that they have has done so;

-

the applicant may, within 10 days after the registrar has made the record of the proceedings available to them, by way of delivery of a notice and accompanying affidavit, add to or vary the terms of the notice of motion and affidavit.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER THAT the applicants will rely on the attached affidavit of Lara Johnstone in support of this application for review.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER THAT if you intend opposing this application for review, you are required: (a) to notify the applicant within 15 court days of receiving this notice of your intention to oppose this matter and in that notice appoint an address and email at which you will accept notice and service of all documents in these proceedings; and (b) within 30 court days after receipt of the applicants response affidavit, to file your answering affidavits, if any.

9

FINALLY: TAKE NOTICE FURTHER THAT If no such notice of intention to oppose is given, the applicant will request the Registrar to place the matter before the Chief Justice to be dealt with in terms of the relevant rules36 in accordance to the Supreme Court Test37, on a date suitable to the registrar and court, on or after 11 September 2012.

Dated at George, Southern Cape, South Africa on this 27th day of August 2012

___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY: REGISTRAR Post: Postboks 5678 Sluppen 7485 Trondheim Telefon: 73 56 70 00 | Telefaks: 73 56 70 01 E-post: postmottak@domstoladministrasjonen.no

[01] PROSECUTION TO:

State of Norway Prosecutor Svein Holden c/o & via: Norwegian Police Postboks 8193 Dep., 0034 Oslo Tel/Fax: 23 29 10 00 | 23 29 10 01 E-post: post.okokrim@politiet.no, politidirektoratet@politiet.no, post.pst@politiet.no, oslo@namsfogden.no

Prosecutor Svein Holden c/o & via: MinJustice: Grete Faremo P.O. Box 8005 Dep, 0030 Oslo Tel: 22 24 90 90 E: grete.faremo@jd.dep.no, postmottak@jd.dep.no, morten.ruud@jd.dep.no, tonje.meinich@jd.dep.no

[02] DEFENDANT TO:

DEFENDANT: Anders Breivik c/o Geir Lippestad Advokatfirmaet Lippestad AS Grensen 12, 0159 OSLO Mob: 91 13 68 76 | Tel: 22 94 10 20 Email: geir@advokatlippestad.no, tord@advokatlippestad.no, odd@advokatlippestad.no

[03] OSLO DISTRICT COURT: JUDGE ARNTZEN38 TO:

REGISTRAR

36

Orientering om saksførebuing, straffesaker 3 Spørsmål om ei sak er eigna som prøvesak || Presentation of case preparation, criminal cases 3 Questions about a case is suitable as a test case http://www.domstol.no/nn-NO/Enkelt-domstol/Noregs-Hogsterett/Saksforberedelse/Orientering-om-saksforebuing-straffesaker/ 37 Høyesterettsprøven || Supreme Court Test http://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/-Norges-Hoyesterett/Hoyesterettsproven/ 38 Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Fagdommer: Arne Lyng; Meddommere: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff

10

Registrar of the Oslo District Court Sorenskriver og administrasjon Postadresse: Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54 E-post: oslo.tinghus.sentralbord@domstol.no, oslo.tingrett.postmottak@domstol.no,

[04] VICTIMS FAMILIES: TO: Siv Hallgren Advokatfirmaet Elden Pb 6684 St Olavs pl, 0129 Oslo Tlf: 21 67 10 00 | Mob: 95 28 89 27 E-post: siv.hallgren@elden.no

TO: Frode Elgesem Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS Pb 1484 Vika, N-0116 Oslo Tel: 23 11 14 13 | Mob: 41 69 60 89 Epost: elg@thommessen.no

TO: Mette Yvonne Larsen Stabell & Co Pboks 599, Sentrum, 0106 Oslo Tel: 22 40 41 40 | Mobil: 918 00 934 E: mette.larsen@advokatstabell.no

11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY NSC Case #: ___________ Oslo District Crt #: 11-188627MED-OTIR/05 In the Application of: LARA JOHNSTONE

Application for Review

In the matter between: OSLO DISTRICT COURT

First Respondent

KINGDOM OF NORWAY

Second Respondent

ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK

Third Respondent

VICTIMS FAMILIES

Fourth Respondent

FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT: Application for REVIEW and DECLARATORY ORDER: Table of Contents:                       

Review: ―Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement‖ Legal Interest: Judicially Un-Investigated Facts Legal Questions: Matriarchal Ecological Wild Law Legal Principles Worldview The Parties: Failure of Justice: Judicially UnInvestigated Facts: Necessity and Guilt: Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity: Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‗Refuse to touch Breivik‘s Principle of Necessity‘: Necessity in Norwegian Law: Norwegian Necessity Judgement: Subjective and Objective Test: Necessity Defence: International and Foreign Law: Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing: Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing: Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law: Military Necessity: use of Nuclear Weapons for Self-Preservation: Military Necessity in Nuremberg German High Command Trial: Military Necessity: The Rendulic Rule: Importance of the Subjective Test: Military Necessity: Rendulic Rule: Subjective Honesty in current Military Doctrine: Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity?

Transparency Disclosure: Correspondence to Mr. Breivik and Mr. Geir Lippestad: Environmental Transparency: Aarhus Environment Info Transparency Convention ECHR: Lithgow on Transparency: Precise and Accessible Legislation: The interests of justice: Multicultural Matriarchy vs. Monocultural Patriarchy?

Multi-cultural Law Must (a) avoid Mono-cultural legal Hegemony, (b) draw on legal cultural diversity:

003 005 007 009 010 018 021 028 031 035 041 048 076 082 086 093 128 136 141 144 145 148 149

I the undersigned, LARA JOHNSTONE do hereby make oath and say: 1.

I am an adult Problem Solving Radical Honoursty African Ecofeminist paralegal, member of the Radical Honesty culture (Annex A) resident at 16 Taaibos Avenue, Heatherpark, George, Southern Cape, South Africa; where I run a small EcoFeminist pedal-powered wormery business (www.sqworms.co.nr). I am duly authorized to make application on my own behalf.

2.

The facts set out herein fall within my personal knowledge, unless otherwise indicated by the context, and are to the best of my belief true and correct.

3.

Review: “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement”

4.

I make this affidavit in support of an application for Review against parts of the judgement by Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Fagdommer: Arne Lyng; Meddommere: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012 (herein after referred to as the ―Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement‖).

1.

To Set Aside the Judgements [A.1] Necessity Ruling (pg.671); and [A.2] the Defendant‘s conviction (finding of guilt) and remit the case back to Oslo District Court for hearing of further evidence to conclude an Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.

2.

Declaratory Orders: The courts failure to Conduct Objective and Subjective Necessity Tests are Not to be Interpreted as Precedent for courts to Deny other Necessity Activists these Necessity tests: In the event that [A.3] the Defendant refuses to cooperate with the Further Evidence Proceedings, an order to change his plea to ‗guilty‘; and/or a Non-Precedent Setting declaratory order; or [A.4] the Failure of Justice Irregularity does not influence the conviction and/or sentence; a ‗Non-Precedent Setting‘ Declaratory Order.

3.

To Set Aside the Judgement‘s Aarhus Convention2 Transparency3 Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges4.

1

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120824_nvb-judmnt?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decisioin-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf 3 The rule of law requires legislation (or judgements or court officials decision-making) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom).

Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 4 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/secr-supv-comm-judges.html 2

2

5.

Legal Interest: Judicially Un-Investigated Facts:

6.

I file this application for review in my capacity as the Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee applicant whose following applications are still pending a ruling from the Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges5, regarding Judicial Ethics violations of Applicants due process rights in this matter, by First Respondents, and 170 complaints of CCBE Code of Ethics violations to the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee6 (166) and Disciplinary Board for Advocates7 (4), for their role in endorsing the censorship, obstruction and suppression of:.

1.

30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: On 30 November 2011, complainant filed an Application to the Oslo District Court: Application for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psychocultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011.

2.

15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: On 15 April 2012, Complainant filed an Application to the Oslo District Court: Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae for an Order (1) to approve the Applicant as an In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amici Curiae, and (2) Amending the Charges Against the Defendant and Applicant to include Treason in terms of Article 85 of Norwegian Constitution, and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial; to be executed by firing squad.8

3.

10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders: On 10 May 2012, Complainant filed an Application to the Norway Supreme Court: Application (1) to be admitted as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee; (2) for An Order demanding the Norwegian Ministry of Culture to act in accordance to European Court of Human Rights ruling in Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, and clarify in adequately accessible and sufficiently precise statement; whether Norway is (A) a ‘Children of the

5

Judicial Ethics Violations Complaints against Judge Nina Opsahl, Wenche Arntzen and Tore Schei: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media), 15 (Collegial Intervention). http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/secr-supv-comm-judges.html 6 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/advfor-disc-comm.html 7 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/disc-brd-for-adv.html 8 Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist 13 August letter to Knights Templar Mr. Breivik : ―Radical Honoursty Definition of Honour: Honour is very important to me, like it is to you; although I don‘t know if we define it similarly. To me honour means I practice what I preach. So if I say I support the rule of law, then I must challenge myself to support the rule of law for those I consider my enemies. To support the rule of law for friends only means I support mobjustice, not the rule of law. Honour also means that I never gossip about someone, if I have a problem with anyone, I tell them of my opinions to their face. I don‘t pretend, and I don‘t do two-faced political correct sycophancy with anyone. Finally to me honour means you don‘t ask someone to do something you are not willing to do yourself. If I ask you to put yourself forward to be charged with treason and the death penalty, then I demonstrate my integrity, seriousness and commitment to the request, by asking of myself the same consequences. You are willing to die for your ideological beliefs, for saving your people and your culture; I am willing to risk death, to challenge your country to give you a free and fair trial, so that we can examine the truth about your evidence. I don‘t doubt your sincere belief that the evidence you wish to bring before the court is as serious as you believe it to be. My worldview seriously doubts certain of your allegations and perspectives; but I am willing to put my perspectives to the serious test. I would be happy to risk death in support of seeking the truth and to encourage others to support the rule of law, particularly for those whom they consider their enemies.‖ http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/rh-13-aug-2012.html

3

Rainbow’9 State legally committed to Multiculturalism, providing all cultures their right to invoke cultural law and hence granting the Applicant her rights to invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law; or (B) a Monocultural Indigenous European Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State, and that the Labour Party Immigration policy is a tactic to maintain their grip on power, by importing Non-Western immigrants as Labour Party vote-fodder; (3) to Review the Oslo District Court failure to act in accordance of due process to a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant member of the Radical Honesty culture.

7.

Legal Questions: Matriarchal Ecological Wild Law10 Legal Principles Worldview:

8.

When dealing with legal questions, I rely on a Patriarchal Human-Ego-Legal Worldview Matrix Qualification and Matriarchal Radical Honoursty and Ecological and Psychological Integrity Root Cause Problem Solving Wild Law11 (Wild Law Summary: Annex B) Principles which – among others – does not recognize human‘s rights as greater than the rights of nature or other planetary species: 1.

A Paralegal Certificate, and Paralegal Diploma, both with Distinction, from the South African Institute of Legal Training and Damelin Correspondence Career Development College.

2.

A Matriarchal Radical Problem Solving Accountability Enquiry examines both the underlying ecological reality environment, and the underlying psychological integrity environment of any dispute that requires resolution: A healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non12 for all other constitutional rights; similarly a psychological integrity environment of philosophical radical transparency courageous truth searching radical honesty relationships that involve sincere forgiveness is a sine qua non13 for healthy, transparent relationships that result in the co-creation of a code of conduct that enables non-violent honest sincere resolutions to disagreements.

3.

Sustainable Democracy Wild Law14 requires at minimum a „Carrying Capacity Footprint‟ Licence to Vote, and until a national carrying capacity footprint is achieved, either a licence to Breed recognizing Judge Jason Brent‟s acknowledgement of the penis and womb as the most potent weapons of war and the ecologically irresponsible use of our penis and wombs to be considered

9

Europost: Children of the Rainbow against Anders Breivik http://www.europost.bg/article?id=4409 Wild Law is a new legal theory and growing social movement. It proposes that we rethink our legal, political, economic and governance systems so that they support, rather than undermine, the integrity and health of the Earth. http://www.wildlaw.org.au/ 11 Wild Law is a new legal theory and growing social movement. It proposes that we rethink our legal, political, economic and governance systems so that they support, rather than undermine, the integrity and health of the Earth. http://www.wildlaw.org.au/ 12 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7383.pdf 13 Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton http://jus-sanguinis-ror.blogspot.com/2012/01/practicing-radical-honesty-being.html 14 Wild Law is a new legal theory and growing social movement. It proposes that we rethink our legal, political, economic and governance systems so that they support, rather than undermine, the integrity and health of the Earth. http://www.wildlaw.org.au/ 10

4

as acts of war15; or adoption of Judge Jason Brent‟s anti-war one child per two adults only policy: Humans: An Endangered Species: Shocking Proposal: ―limit the right of any male to father only one live child and limit the right of every woman to one live birth. [..] Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under my proposal any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. [..] Population would continue to be reduced pursuant to the method [..] until it reached 300 million [or a number] based on the ability of the earth to provide resources for humanity to maintain an acceptable standard of living for a minimum of 25,000 years.‖16 [Annex C: Sustainability Defined] 4.

Green17 Carrying Capacity Footprint Licence to Vote: A sustainable democracy or republic only allows citizens who live below the nations carrying capacity in terms of procreation and consumption, the licence to vote. Any citizen whose

15

―We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc.; you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population, an ACT OF WAR.‖ – Judge Jason G. Brent 16 The action I am initially proposing is value neutral and does not favor or harm any individual or group. The action I am proposing will be applied to every person or group without favoring anyone. The action is very simple---limit the right of any male to father only one live child and limit the right of every woman to one live birth. In simple terms a couple is limited to one and only one child—not one child for the male and one child for the female.

These limitations would be applied to every single human being without regard to race, religion, national origin or anything else and it would be absolute, no exceptions. It would be applied without regard for wealth, or the lack of wealth, and it would be applied without regard for the country of birth or residence of either the male or female. It would be applied without regard to intelligence, or the lack thereof, and without regard of the ability of the male or female to function in society. (At a later date when a method was agreed upon relating to dividing human beings into two groups, the ability to function in society would be considered in relation to who could or could not reproduce.) The right to either father a child or for a female to give birth could not be sold or transferred; it would be personal to the individual. If a live child were born with a birth defect or with some other disability it would not permit either the father or mother to produce another child. Each couple would have the right to have all appropriate pre-natal tests to determine if the child in the womb would be born with a birth or genetic defect and if the chance existed that the child would be born with such a defect to have an abortion.

Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under my proposal any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. If the female cannot or refuses to provide the name of the father she and the child shall be immediately executed. All of the ideas set forth in this paragraph may be considered horrible and inhumane.

However, since they will be applied equally, no individual or group is harmed except to the extent that an individual cannot either father or give birth to a second child. The harm caused to the individual and the harm caused to all of humanity by enforcing the one child rule set forth above is miniscule compared to the harm which all of humanity would suffer if population were not reduced.

Since the birth of a child is very hard to hide, there must be communal responsibility and accountability for any attempt to do so. Those who knowingly failed to report the birth of a second or any higher number of children would themselves be subject to the very same severe punishment that would be meted out to the parents of the second or higher numbered child—no religious, cultural or ethnic exemptions would obtain.

Humanity cannot consider the evasion of the single child rule a game to be played with a minor penalty, if caught. No group or individual could be permitted any evasion of the one child rule a that would lead to a disparity among groups and among individuals causing irreparable harm to the entire system established to reduce population. Should this sanction seem barbaric or draconian, it is surely less draconian in its effects than the merciless verdict of nature upon a species that refuses to contain its expansion.

In order for this proposal to be fair, equitable and workable, society and governments would be required to take action today to provide the means for every human being to control his or her fertility, to give everyone on the face of the earth the ability to limit birth to a single child.

Governments would be required to devote a whatever portion of their Gross Domestic Product is necessary to the provision of artificial birth control devices of any and all types including sterilization, at low or no cost as appropriate, to their citizens, no matter the age of the citizens once a citizen reaches the age he/she can physically reproduce. This would also include instruction as how to use the devices. This would also include education of both males and females that the birth of a second child would result in the execution of the father and mother as well as the child. Governments would be required to provide safe, as much as any medical procedure can be safe, and low cost or free access to abortion. If any person, either male or female, had more than two failures of birth control devices, it would be conclusively presumed that the person was unable to use birth control devices and the person would be physically and permanently sterilized.

If poor nations were unable to devote the necessary funds to accomplish the one child rule in five years, the rich nations of the world would be required to assist the poor nations, after an evaluation that the poor nations were doing the best they could under some reasonable standard.

Since survival of our species depends on reducing population below the current 6.7 billion humans now alive, the necessary funds to establish the system to control population must be made available. It should be emphasized that a ―One-Child-Per-Family‖ (OCPF) law that is almost completely effective will not suffice. It must be totally and universally effective. After a five year preparation period, the rule must be enforced. The reduction in population would continue under the one child rule until all of humanity agreed upon the method and criteria necessary to implement the two group solution described herein. Population would continue to be reduced pursuant to the method and criteria of the two group solution until it reached 300 million or some other lower number agreed upon by humanity. The number finally agreed upon would be based on the ability of the earth to provide resources for humanity to maintain an acceptable standard of living for a minimum of 25,000 years. And 25,000 years is infinitely small when compared to the 160 million years the dinosaurs ruled the earth.

- Humans: An Endangered Species, by Judge Jason Brent http://www.jasonbrent.weebly.com/ 17 The only real 'green'.. irrespective of race, religion or culture are those who live below their nation/region's carrying capacity footprint in terms of [A] PROCREATION and [B] CONSUMPTION. Anyone who lives above their regions carrying capacity..... whether in terms of consumption and or procreation, or both.. IS NOT GREEN... but is PSEUDO-GREEN.... Most European PSEUDO-GREEN's... procreate below carrying capacity.. but CONSUME above carrying capacity... Most Non-European PSEUDO-GREEN'S ..... procreate above carrying capacity.. but consume below carrying capacity... The only person who is REALLY GREEN.. not in terms of their verbal diarrhea.. is that person who practices what they preach in terms of consumption AND procreation..

5

consumption and/or procreation footprint is above the nations carrying capacity footprint is effectively robbing future generations of the nations resources that should be conserved and preserved for their future. We don‘t give robbers the code to the nations bank safes; so why do we give citizen ecological rapists and robbers a licence to vote and bribe politicians to rob future generations resources?

5.

Green Carrying Capacity Footprint Licence to Legal Ethical and Psycho-Integrity Legal Credibility: Citizens whose carrying capacity lifestyle is green in terms of procreation and consumption, i.e. who would or should be granted the licence to vote have higher legal ethical and psycho-integrity credibility in a court of law, or in any political or economic dispute, considering that they practice what they preach in terms of living a lifestyle that does not contribute to ecological degradation, resource depletion, overpopulation and local, national or international resource wars.

6.

Howard Law School Prof. Charlie Houston‟s Social Engineer Lawyer Maxim to expose legal parasitism18 in a Feminist context is to expose the legal matrix‟s endorsement of cannon fodder warmongering foundation of patriarchal society19: The Patriarchal legal matrix worldview that endorses Masculine Insecurity Human Farming20 of Economic and Military Cannon Fodder, for the - Iron Mountain21 ‗War is a Racket22 - Tragedy of the Commons23 breeding war24, which encourages the breeding of surplus youth bulge populations, to be converted into dumb, stupid animal pawns25 cannon fodder soldier armies in support of Patriarchal Corporate Resource Theft Profiteering.

7.

The Kaffir Matrix Court system is founded on ‗Kaffir Legislation‘: Inalienable Right to Breed and Vote: Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‗Right to Breed‘ and ‗Right to Vote‘, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence.

18

‗Lawyers are either social engineers, or they are parasites. Social Engineer Lawyers aim to eliminate the difference between what the laws say and mean, and how they are applied; whereas legal parasites aim to entrench their parasitism from the difference between what the laws say and mean, and the application of such differences to their parasitic benefit.‘ - Prof. Charlie Houston, mentor of Justice Thurgood Marshall, Simple Justice: History of Brown v. Board of Education 19 ―War as a general social release. This is a psychosocial function, serving the same purpose for a society as do the holiday, the celebration, and the orgy for the individual---the release and redistribution of undifferentiated tensions. War provides for the periodic necessary readjustment of standards of social behaviour (the "moral climate") and for the dissipation of general boredom, one of the most consistently undervalued and unrecognized of social phenomena. War fills certain functions essential to the stability of our society; until other ways of filling them are developed, the war system must be maintained -- and improved in effectiveness.‖ - Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability for Peace (paragraphs found respectively on p45 & p4) 20 Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement: http://youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A 21 Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace http://www.teachpeace.com/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf 22 War is a Racket, by USMC General Smedley Bulter http://warisaracket.org/dedication.html 23 In this riddle, the lily pond has a potentially virulent lily that apparently will double in size each day. If the lily grows unchecked it will cover the entire pond in 30 days, choking off all other forms of life in the water by the time it covers the entire pond. If a skeptic waited until 50% of the pond was covered before taking any remedial action to save the pond, when would he act? The answer: on the 29th day of the month! But by then, it would be too late.

[See also: World Pop. Balance: Understanding Exponential Growth: Bacteria in a Bottle: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/exponential-growth-tutorial/bacteria-exponential-growth.html 24 ―We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.‖ - Jason G. Brent, Former Judge and author of Humans: An Endangered Species http://www.jasonbrent.weebly.com/ 25 "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns" -- Henry Kissinger. Date: August 9, 2005

6

8.

The Masculine Insecurity Human Farming Kaffir26 Legal Matrix avoid requiring voting27 and breeding licences; because (A) their endorsement of the Inalienable Right to Vote, or Universal Suffrage for the Ignorant is their road to centralisation of power and tyranny28; and (B) their endorsement of the Inalienable Right to Breed, is their endorsement of the Economic and Military Cannon Fodder29 - Iron Mountain30 ‗War is a Racket31 - Tragedy of the Commons32 use of women as humanfactory-farming-cannon-fodder-brood-sows for their Kaffir Matrix profit from the Human Farming33 Tragedy of the Commons34 breeding war35 resource wars36.

9.

The Parties: 1.

The applicant‘s aforementioned Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist legal interests in this matter remain unresolved, pending a ruling from the Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges37, regarding Judicial Ethics violations against the Applicants due process rights in this matter, by First Respondents, and 170 complaints of CCBE Code of Ethics violations to the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee38 (166) and Disciplinary Board for Advocates39 (4), against Counsel for the third and fourth respondents, for their role in endorsing the censorship, obstruction and suppression of the applicants applications.

2.

The first respondents are the Oslo District Court Judges and Lay Judges who authored the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement on 24 August 2012: Rettens

26

Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement: http://youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A ―In order to achieve this goal [of world domination], we must introduce [the right to vote] universal suffrage beforehand, without distinctions of class and wealth. Then the masses of people will decide everything; and since it [universal suffrage] is controlled by us we will achieve through it the absolute majority, which we could never achieve if only the educated and possessing classes had the vote.‖ -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 10th Sitting, Wallstein Pub. House, ISBN 3-89244-191-x, p. 60 28 ―In order to achieve this goal [of world domination], we must introduce [the right to vote] universal suffrage beforehand, without distinctions of class and wealth. Then the masses of people will decide everything; and since it [universal suffrage] is controlled by us we will achieve through it the absolute majority, which we could never achieve if only the educated and possessing classes had the vote.‖ -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 10th Sitting, Wallstein Pub. House, ISBN 3-89244-191-x, p. 60 29 The organizing principle of any society is for war. The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers. . . . War readiness accounts for approximately a tenth of the output of the world's total economy.‖ For Stone – and many others – it was clear that the government was a co-existence of various interest groups: the oil industry; the pharmaceutical industry; but mainly, the military-industrial complex… warmongers. http://www.philipcoppens.com/ironmountain.html 30 Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace http://www.teachpeace.com/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf 31 War is a Racket, by USMC General Smedley Bulter http://warisaracket.org/dedication.html 32 In this riddle, the lily pond has a potentially virulent lily that apparently will double in size each day. If the lily grows unchecked it will cover the entire pond in 30 days, choking off all other forms of life in the water by the time it covers the entire pond. If a skeptic waited until 50% of the pond was covered before taking any remedial action to save the pond, when would he act? The answer: on the 29th day of the month! But by then, it would be too late.

[See also: World Pop. Balance: Understanding Exponential Growth: Bacteria in a Bottle: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/exponential-growth-tutorial/bacteria-exponential-growth.html 33 Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement: http://youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A 34 In this riddle, the lily pond has a potentially virulent lily that apparently will double in size each day. If the lily grows unchecked it will cover the entire pond in 30 days, choking off all other forms of life in the water by the time it covers the entire pond. If a skeptic waited until 50% of the pond was covered before taking any remedial action to save the pond, when would he act? The answer: on the 29th day of the month! But by then, it would be too late.

[See also: World Pop. Balance: Understanding Exponential Growth: Bacteria in a Bottle: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/exponential-growth-tutorial/bacteria-exponential-growth.html 35 ―We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.‖ - Jason G. Brent, Former Judge and author of Humans: An Endangered Species http://www.jasonbrent.weebly.com/ 36 ―We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.‖ - Jason G. Brent, Former Judge and author of Humans: An Endangered Species http://www.jasonbrent.weebly.com/ 37 Judicial Ethics Violations Complaints against Judge Nina Opsahl, Wenche Arntzen and Tore Schei: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media), 15 (Collegial Intervention). http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/secr-supv-comm-judges.html 38 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/advfor-disc-comm.html 39 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/disc-brd-for-adv.html 27

7

Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Fagdommer: Arne Lyng; Meddommere: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff.

3.

The second respondents are State Prosecutors Svein Holden and Inga Bejer Engh who prosecuted the charges of terrorism and mass murder against the defendant; not by conducting a Terrorism Treason trial, but instead chose to host a Political Psychiatry Circus Show Trial on the world stage. This Political Psychiatry Circus Show Trial allowed them to – among others - refuse to conduct the required objective and subjective tests of the Defendant‘s Necessity Defence; and if the Onus of Proof in a case of Necessity in Norwegian law lies upon the state, failed to rule out the possibility of the Defendants criminal acts as an act of necessity.

4.

The third respondent is the Accused Anders Behring Breivik who was charged with committing the 22 July 2011 Attacks against Norway: the bombing of government buildings in Oslo that resulted in eight deaths, and the mass shooting at a camp of the Workers' Youth League (AUF) of the Labour Party on the island of Utøya where he killed 69 people, mostly teenagers. The charges being "destabilising or destroying basic functions of society" and "creating serious fear in the population", acts of terrorism under the criminal law. He admitted to the acts, but pled not guilty based upon the defence of necessity (nodrett).

5.

The fourth respondents are the Victims Families of the 22 July Attacks, who were robbed of a trial that included a Matriarchal ecological and psychological integrity root cause problem solving analysis and enquiry of the underlying – unhealthy ecological and psychological integrity - issues that contributed to and resulted in the death of their loved one‘s.

10.

Failure of Justice: Judicially UnInvestigated Facts: Necessity and Guilt:

11.

The applicant is unaware of any reference made during the court proceedings that provided any details of any Norwegian or International specific necessity criminal statute that specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity.

12.

Furthermore Applicant is unaware of the existence of any International or Norwegian specific necessity criminal statute which specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity.

13.

According to the applicants limited knowledge Necessity criminal statutes do not specifically allow or disallow the killing of government or politically active young people.

Necessity criminal statutes generally provide for some kind of an objective and subjective test that examines each alleged criminal act to objectively and subjectively determine whether necessity existed, or the defendant honestly believed it existed, within the particular criminal act‘s relevant circumstances.

8

14.

The court, prosecution and defence counsel failed to conduct the required subjective and objective tests to examine the evidence for the Defendant‘s necessity motivations to determine (I) objectively whether the defendant‘s claims – simplistically rephrased as ‗Titanic Europe is on a demographic/immigration collision course with Islam Iceberg‘; and (II) secondly whether the defendant subjectively perceived the Titanic Europe/Islam Iceberg circumstances this way.

15.

The Judgement fails to disclose Norwegian law‘s Onus of Proof requirements in a case of necessity: i.e. upon which party – Defendant or State - does the Onus of Proof lie in case of Necessity? In South Africa, the proof in a defense of necessity, ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, lies on the State. In the absence of the State ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, the accused claim of necessity stands.

16.

It is clear that the Court's statement of reasons does not show the results of the courts objective and subjective enquiry into the Defendant‘s claim of necessity. Thus, it is also clear that the Court's statement of reasons for its ‗necessity finding of guiilt‘, are inadequate. Hence the finding of guilt needs to be set aside for further evidence to objectively and subjective evaluate the defendants necessity defence.

17.

Finally if the Courts statement of reasons remain uncorrected, they would set a bad precedent, encouraging other courts to deny necessity defendants their rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity defence, including denying the defendant information clarifying upon whom the Onus of Proof in a defence of necessity lies.

18.

Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity:

19.

On 17 April 2012, the Oslo Court tweeted40 to Journalists attending the Breivik trial: ―Wrong translation in the 22-7 trial yesterday: Breivik said "nodrett", Correct translation: "Principle of Necessity", not "self defence".‖

20.

The principle of Necessity is enshrined in Norwegian Law in Section 47 of the Penal Code41: "No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone's person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act."

21.

Prosecutor Engh and Holden „Refuse to touch Breivik‟s Principle of Necessity‟:

22.

40 41

The following reports indicate that Prosecutor Engh and Holden violated their duty of objectivity in terms of (a) impartially enquiring into and/or responding to the Accuseds‘ Defence; and (b) providing the court with the Prosecution‘s evaluation and conclusion of the evidence for and against Breivik‘s invocation of his Necessity Defence.

https://twitter.com/#!/Oslotingrett/status/192198581803945984 http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19020522-010-eng.pdf

9

23.

In her closing statement, Prosecutor Engh acknowledge‘s that: 1.

Norwegian prosecutors have a duty to conduct their investigation with objectivity;

2.

Norwegian law allows for an accused to plead to necessity and/or self defence,

3.

Where an accused does invoke necessity, it is the court and prosecutor‘s duty to investigate the accused‘s necessity defence arguments and evidence;

4.

If an accused successfully invokes a necessity defence, this can and must result in either mitigation of sentence and/or a verdict of innocence;

5.

Breivik invoked the defence of necessity;

6.

Despite the fact that Breivik invoked the necessity defence, both Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‗refuse to touch the principle of necessity‘.

24.

Document.NO: Inga Bejer Engh Procedure Part.I (Inga Bejer Engh Procedure Part.I)42

I Norge har vi fire vilkår for at noen kan straffes Det må foreligge en handling som rammes av et straffebestemmelse, det må ikke foreligge nødrett, det må foreligge subjektiv skyld og gjerningsmannen må ha vært tilregnelig.

Jeg vil i min prosedyre ta opp faktum, min kollega vil ta opp tilregnelighet. Ingen av oss vil berøre nødrett. Til tross for at det var det han påberopte seg.

25.

There must be an act within the scope of a criminal provision, there must be no necessity, there must be subjective guilt and the perpetrator must have been sane.

I want my procedure to record the fact, my colleague will address accountability. None of us will touch the principle of necessity. Despite the fact that it was what he claimed.

NRK: Rettssaken - dag 42 (The trial - day 42)43

kl. 12.15 Engh: - I Norge har vi fire vilkår som må foreligge for at noen kan straffes: det må foreligge objektiv sett en handling som rammmes av et straffebud i straffeloven, det må ikke foreligge nødverge eller nødrett, og det må forligge subjektiv skyld hos gjerningsmannen.

26.

In Norway, we have four conditions that someone can be punished

at. 12.15 Engh: - In Norway, we have four conditions that must exist that someone can be punished: it must be objectively seen an act rammmes of a penal provision in criminal law, there must be no selfdefense or necessity, and it must forligge subjective guilt of the perpetrator.

VG: Ord-for-ord - dag 42 prosedyren til aktoratet (Word-for-word - day 42 procedure for prosecutors)44

Nå skal jeg gå over til å si litt om hvordan vi har delt inn prosedyren, slik at det skal være lettere å følge I Norge har vi fire vilkår for at noen skal kunne straffes. Disse vilkårene vil danne grunnlaget for strafferammen. Fir det første må det foreligge en handling som rammes

Now I'll go over to say something about how we have divided the procedure, so it will be easier to follow Norway has four conditions for someone to be punished. These terms will form the basis for the penalty. Fir the first there must be an act within the scope of a penal provision in criminal

42

http://www.document.no/2012/06/inga-bejer-engh-prosedyre-del-i/ http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/rettssaken---dag-42-1.8216159 44 http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10066042 43

10

av et straffebud i straffeloven.

law.

- For det andre må det ikke foreligge nødverge eller nødrett. For det tredje må det foreligge subjektiv skyld hos gjerningsmannen. Og sist, men ikke minst det vanskeligste: gjerningsmannen må ha vært tilregnelig når han begikk de straffbare handlingene. Jeg vil i min del av prosedyren går gjennom del én og tre. Og gå gjennom de lovbrudd som er gjenstand for vurderiung. Min kollega Holden vil ta for seg spørsmål om tiltalte er tilregnelig eller ikke, om vilkåret er tilstede.

- Second, there must be no self-defense or necessity. Thirdly, there must be subjective guilt of the perpetrator. And last but not least, the most difficult: the perpetrator must have been sane when he committed the offenses. I want my part of the procedure goes through part one and three. And go through the offenses that are subject to vurderiung. My colleague Holden will address the question whether the defendant is sane or not, whether the condition is present.

- Når det gjelder villkår nummer 2, nødrett eller nødverge. Hverken jeg eller Holden vil berøre temaet nærmere. Dette til tross for at tiltalte påberopte seg dette for sin frifinnelse.

27.

- When it comes to Conditions No. 2, necessity or self-defense. Neither I nor Holden will touch the topic further. This despite the fact that the defendant claimed that for his acquittal.

NRK: Rettssaken - dag 43 (The Trial – Day 43)45

kl. 09.10 Lippestad: - Spørsmålet som tiltalte har reist, er om det finnes straffefrihetsgrunner. Han sa innledningsvis at han påberopte seg nødrett.

at. 09.10 Lippestad: - The question that the defendant has raised is whether there is impunity reasons. He said initially that he invoked the principle of necessity.

kl. 09.29 Lippestad: - Så metodebruk og sakkyndige som kommer helt kort om forvaring.

at. 09.29 Lippestad: - So I'm going to look at the methodology and discuss some of the other experts who have been inside the case. Then comes the very short bit about the necessity and finally a little bit about detention.

kommer jeg til å se på drøfte litt av de andre har vært inne i saken. Så litt om nødrett og til slutt litt

kl. 10.21 Bistandsadvokat John Christian Elden til NRK i pausen: – Jeg synes prosedyren er god fordi den fokuserer på det som er interessant for retten.

Lippestad har sagt han ikke vil bruke så mye tid på nødrett og frifinnelse, men argumenterer tilregnelighetsspørsmålet. kl. 11.28 Lippestad: - Helt kort til slutt, og av rent formalistiske grunner: Breivik sa selv at han skjønner at han blir starffet for disse handlingene, men han påberoper seg av formelle grunner nødrett. kl. 14.45 Breivik: - Dommerne som sitter her i dag, kan dømme meg som de selv føler for. Hvis dere velger å anerkjenne min påstand om nødrett, vil dere på en svært effektiv måte sende sjokkbølger til alle de legitime regimer i Europa.

45

at. 10.21 Lawyer John Christian Elden to NRK during the break - I think the procedure is good because it focuses on what is of interest to the court.

Lippestad has said he will not spend as much time on the principle of necessity and an acquittal, but argues sane safety issue. at. 11.28 Lippestad: - Completely cards at the end, and of pure formalistic reasons: Breivik said that he realizes that he is starffet for these actions, but he invokes the principle of necessity formal reasons. at. 14.45 Breivik: - The judges who sit here today, you can judge me as they feel. If you choose to acknowledge my claim of necessity, you will in a very efficient way to send shock waves to all the legitimate regimes in Europe.

http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/rettssaken---dag-43-1.8218343

11

kl. 14.51 Breivik: - Jeg kan ikke anerkjenne straffeskyld.

Jeg påberoper meg nødrett for å ha kjempet for mitt folk, min kultur og mitt land.

at. 14.51 Breivik: - I can not acknowledge guilt. I claim necessity for having fought for my people, my culture and my country.

kl. 14.51 Breivik: - Angrepet 22. juli var et preventivt angrep til forsvar for det norske urfolk.

at. 14.51 Breivik: - The attack on 22 July was a preventive attack in defense of the Norwegian Indigenous Peoples.

kl. 14.51 Breivik: - Jeg krever derfor at jeg blir frifunnet for de aktuelle anklager.

at. 14.51 Breivik: - I require that I be acquitted of the charges in question.

28.

Necessity in Norwegian Law:

29.

LAW-2005-05-20-28: Lov om straff (straffeloven). | Act on Punishment (Penal Code)46, says:

§ 17. Nødrett

§ 17 Necessity

En handling som ellers ville være straffbar, er lovlig når

An action that would otherwise be criminal, is legal when

a) den blir foretatt for å redde liv, helse, eiendom eller en annen interesse fra en fare for skade som ikke kan avverges på annen rimelig måte, og

a) it is being undertaken to save lives, health, property or any interest from the danger of injury that can not be averted in any other reasonable manner, and

b) denne skaderisikoen er langt større enn skaderisikoen ved handlingen.

b) the risk of injury is far greater than the risk of injury by the action.

30.

LAW-1998-03-20-10-§ 5: Forskrift om sikkerhetsadministrasjon | Regulations relating to security management47 allows for ―security breaches without criminal liability if the terms of the principle of necessity or self defence in criminal law law § 47 or § 48 is met.‖

§ 5-3. Sikkerhetsbrudd ved nødrett og nødverge Sikkerhetsbrudd foretas uten straffansvar dersom vilkårene for nødrett eller nødverge i straffeloven § 47 eller § 48 er oppfylt. Forholdet skal rapporteres i samsvar med § 5-4 til § 5-6.

31.

46 47

§ 5-3. Security breaches at the principle of necessity and self-defense Security breaches made without criminal liability if the terms of the principle of necessity or selfdefense in criminal law § 47 or § 48 is met. The relationship must be reported in accordance with § § 5-4 to 5-6.

Norwegian Necessity Judgement: Subjective and Objective Test:

http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/ltavd1/filer/nl-20050520-028.html&emne=n%F8drett*&#17 http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/ltavd1/filer/sf-20010629-0723.html&emne=n%F8drett*&

12

32.

In LE-2012-76983 Eidsivating Appeal – Judgment48 of 29 May 2012, an Eritrean man was accused of several Perjury related Immigration offences to help his sister to come to Norway. He admitted the facts, but claimed necessity. In court he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal suspended the appeal to test his conviction on one point (whether the court a quo had seriously enquired into his necessity defence).

33.

The court agreed with the Defendant‘s argument that asserted that the court a quo had not considered the circumstances that were invoked as the basis for the existence of a principle of necessity situation. The judgement stated that it is clear that ―the courts statement of reasons does not show that the court has considered this argument. Thus it is also clear that the Court‘s statement of reasons in so far are inadequate.‖

34.

It would appear that Norwegian law has both a subjective and objective enquiry test into the necessity defence, which is similar to South African law; namely to test whether objectively there was a situation of necessity, and secondly whether subjectively the defendant sincerely believed there was a real situation of necessity thereby motivating his conduct.

Hovedforhandling i saken ble holdt 23. februar 2012. Tiltalte erkjente å ha opptrådt som beskrevet i tiltalen, men nektet straffeskyld. Han påberopte dels nødrett, dels – i forhold til tiltalens post I og III a – at hans handlinger falt inn under straffrihetsbestemmelsen i utlendingsloven § 108 fjerde ledd bokstav b annet punktum.

The main hearing in the matter was held on 23 February 2012. The defendant acknowledged having performed as described in the indictment, but denied culpability. He claimed partly necessity, partly - in relation to attractive's mail I and III that his actions fell under straffrihetsbestemmelsen in the Immigration Act § 108 fourth paragraph, second sentence b.

[..] Når det gjaldt anførselen om nødrett, straffeloven § 47, fant tingretten ingen holdepunkter for at tiltaltes søster reelt sett hadde vært i noen nødrettssituasjon i Sudan, eller at tiltalte hadde oppfattet det slik.

[..] Regarding the argument about the principle of necessity, Penal Code, § 47, the court found no evidence that the defendant's sister in real terms had been in a situation of necessity in Sudan, or that the defendant had seen it that way.

[..] Slik lagmannsretten oppfatter støtteskrivet, gjøres det for det første gjeldende at tingretten ikke har oppfattet og tatt stilling til det som tiltalte gjorde gjeldende som nødrettssituasjon.

Tingretten har vurdert om søsterens situasjon i Sudan var slik at hun var i en « paa anden Maade uafvændelig Fare ». Men det var ikke det tiltalte gjorde gjeldende. Han gjorde derimot gjeldende at søsterens plan om å flykte til Israel via Sinaiørkenen, noe hun truet ham med at hun ville utføre hvis han ikke hjalp henne til Norge, var jevngodt med å true med selvmord. Dermed var han i en nødrettssituasjon da han hjalp henne til Norge. I praksis var han også i en tilsvarende situasjon da han begikk de øvrige overtredelsene etter at hun hadde kommet inn i Norge. Grunnen var at han gikk ut fra at hvis han ikke fulgte opp historien overfor norske myndigheter, ville søsteren bli sendt tilbake til Sudan. Og i så fall

[..] As the appellate court consider supporting letter, made for the first claim that the court has considered and taken a position on what the accused did the current situation as a necessity.

The court has considered whether the sister's situation in Sudan was such that she was in an "on the candidate Maada uafvændelig Danger." But it was not the defendant was valid. He did however claim that her sister's plan to flee to Israel via the Sinai desert, which she threatened him that she would perform if he helped her to Norway, was tantamount to threatening suicide. Thus, he is in a situation of necessity when he helped her to Norway. In practice, he was also in a similar situation when he committed the other offenses after she had come to Norway. The reason was that he assumed that if he did not follow up the story to the Norwegian authorities, would his sister be sent back to Sudan. And so, she would take up the plan

48

http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/lr/lre/le-2012-076983.html&emne=n%F8drett*&

13

ville hun ta opp igjen planen om å flykte gjennom Sinai på nytt. [..]

to escape through the Sinai again. [..]

Nødrettsanførselen På bakgrunn av redegjørelsen i støtteskrivet oppfatter lagmannsretten det slik at denne delen av anken først og fremst reiser spørsmål om tingrettens saksbehandling, nærmere bestemt domsgrunnene. Det tiltalte i realiteten gjør gjeldende, er at tingretten ikke har vurdert de omstendighetene som ble påberopt som grunnlag for at det forelå en nødrettssituasjon.

Nødrettsanførselen On the basis of the statement in support letter perceive the Court of Appeal so that this part of the appeal primarily raises questions about the court proceedings, specifically judicial reasons. The defendant actually asserts is that the court has not considered the circumstances that were invoked as the basis for the existence of a principle of necessity situation.

Lagmannsretten oppfatter møtende aktors påtegning til statsadvokaten slik at aktor bekrefter at tiltaltes forklaring om nødrettssituasjonen var som anført av forsvareren i støtteskrivet. Det er på det rene at tingrettens domsgrunner ikke viser at tingretten har vurdert denne anførselen. Dermed er det også på det rene at tingrettens domsgrunner for så vidt er mangelfulle.

The Court of Appeal consider attending prosecutor's endorsement of a public prosecutor that the prosecutor confirmed that the defendant's explanation of the principle of necessity situation was that led by the defense in the support letter. It is clear that the Court's statement of reasons does not show that the court has considered this argument. Thus, it is also clear that the Court's statement of reasons in so far are inadequate.

35.

Necessity Defence: International and Foreign Law: The rationale of the necessity defense is not that a person, when faced with the pressure of circumstances of nature, lacks the mental element which the crime in question requires. Rather, it is this reason of public policy: the law ought to promote the achievement of higher values at the expense of lesser values, and sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law.49

36.

The principle of the necessity defence is rooted in common law50 and any accused pleading to necessity argues that their actions were justified or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants who plead to necessity – whether common law necessity, political necessity (civil disobedience) or military necessity - argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as being criminal, because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm.

37.

Most common law and civil law jurisdictions recognize this defense, but only under limited circumstances. Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid.

38.

49 50

As argued in THE NECESSITY DEFENSE IN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CASES: BRING IN THE JURY, by William P. Quigley:

WAYNE R. LAFAVE, CRIMINAL LAW, § 5.4, at 477 (3d ed. 2000). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

14

[..] The doctrine of necessity, with its inevitable weighing of choices of evil, holds that certain conduct, though it violates the law and produces harm, is justified because it averts a greater evil and hence produces a net social gain or benefit to society. 51 Glanville Williams expressed the necessity doctrine this way: ―[S]ome acts that would otherwise be wrong are rendered rightful by a good purpose, or by the necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils.‖ 52 He offers this example: Suppose that a dike threatens to give way, and the actor is faced with the choice of either making a breach in the dike, which he knows will result in one or two people being drowned, or doing nothing, in which case he knows that the dike will burst at another point involving a whole town in sudden destruction. In such a situation, where there is an unhappy choice between the destruction of one life and the destruction of many, utilitarian philosophy would certainly justify the actor in preferring the lesser evil.53

39.

According to Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defence54: [If] the [necessity] defense is allowed, the jury is called upon to weigh controversial political issues and to function as the ―conscience of the community.‖ ―Reflected in the jury‘s decision is a judgment of whether, under all the circumstances of the event and in the light of all known about the defendant, the prohibited act, if committed, deserves condemnation by the law.‖55 In cases where judges have been persuaded to allow the necessity defense, juries have, often enough, delivered not guilty verdicts. [..] When judges have allowed the necessity defense to go to a jury in civil disobedience cases, more often than not the defendants are acquitted.56 There are a number of cases in which charges were dropped after the judge announced that the necessity defense would be permitted.57

40.

In Nuclear War, Citizen Intervention, and the Necessity Defense58, Robert Aldridge and Virginia Stark, document numerous cases of Common Law and Civil Disobedience Necessity Defence Cases which resulted in Innocence verdicts or severe Mitigation of Sentencing.

41.

Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:

42.

In Regina v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, three crew members and a cabin boy escaped a shipwrech to spend eighteen days on a boat, over 1,000 miles from land, with no wanter and only two one pound tins of turnips. After four days, they caught and ate a small turtle. That was the only food that they had eaten prior to the twentieth day of being lost at sea. Ultimately, two of the crew members killed the ailing cabin boy and ―fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four days.‖ Four days later, they were rescued. Two of the men were charged with murder. The court found that the cabin boy

51

See Joseph J. Simeone, ―Survivors‖ of the Eternal Sea: A Short True Story, 45 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 1123, 1141 (2001).

GLANVILLE WILLIAMS, THE SANCTITY OF LIFE AND THE CRIMINAL LAW 198 (1957).

53 GLANVILLE WILLIAMS, THE SANCTITY OF LIFE AND THE CRIMINAL LAW 198 (1957). At 199-200 54 http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520106/ 55 Everett v. United States, 336 F.2d 979, 985–86 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (Wright, J., dissenting).

56 When the necessity defense is actually submitted to the trier of fact in civil disobedience cases, defendants have usually been acquitted. See Bernard D. Lambek, Necessity and International Law: Arguments for the Legality of Civil Disobedience, 5 YALE L. & POL‘Y REV. 472, 475 (1986), note 7, at 473.

57 People v. Gray, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 853 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1991).

58 http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1887&context=lawreview 52

15

would likely have died by the time they were rescued and that the crew members, but for their conduct, would probably have died as well. The Queen's Bench Division Judges held that the defendants were guilty of murder in killing the cabin boy and stated that their obvious necessity was no defence. The defendants were sentenced to death, but this was subsequently commuted to six months' imprisonment.

43.

In Spakes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the Texas Criminal Appeals Court allowed the jury to be instructed on the necessity defense before deliberating the verdict for an inmate whose three cellmates had planned an escape and threatened to slit his throat if he did not accompany them. The defendant inmate argued that because of the terribly violent crimes of which his cellmates had been convicted (one had bragged about chopping his girlfriend up with an ax), it was a necessity that he break the law, by accompanying them in their escape.

44.

In United States v. Ashton, 24 F. Cas. 873, 873-74 (C.C.D. Mass 1834) (No. 14,470), sailors prosecuted for mutiny were found not guilty, after arguing the necessity for their mutiny based upon the dangerously leaky ship and that this danger had been concealed from them until after they left port. Circuit Justice Story found them not guilty of mutiny.

45.

In United States v. Holmes, 26 F. Cas. 360 (E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383), Holmes was involved in a shipwreck, where the crew were charged with manslaughter for throwing sixteen passengers overboard in a frantic attempt to lighten a sinking lifeboat. The Prosecutor argued the passengers should be protected at all costs, whereas the Defence placed the jurors in the sinking lifeboat with the defendant. The Defendant was found guilty, but the jurors requested leniency, to which the court complied by sentencing the defendant to six months in prison and a fine of twenty dollars.

46.

In the 1919 Arizona decision of State v. Wooten, commonly referred to as the Bisbee Deportation case, Professor Morris59 describes the acquittal of a Sherrif based upon the ‗necessity‘ for committing Kidnapping as follows: 1.

On April 26, 1917, soon after the United States entered World War I, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) called a strike of copper miners in Cochise County, Arizona. On July 12, 1917, the county sheriff led a posse that rounded up and deported over 1,000 members of the IWW. One of the posse was brought to trial on charges of kidnapping. He offered to prove that the strikers were trying to obstruct the war, had stored up a large amount of ammunition, and had threatened citizens; that help from federal troops had been sought to no avail; and that the leader of the local strike had told the sheriff he could no longer control his men. On these facts, he asserted the defense of necessity.

2.

The judge recognized the defense. He ruled that evidence of necessity could be excluded only if it were completely inadequate as a matter of law to establish the defense, and that the weight and sufficiency of the evidence were for the jury to decide—even in a case which ―aroused great public interest.‖

59

Norval Morris, The Verswami Story, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 948, 989 (1985); see also The Law of Necessity as Applied in the Bisbee Deportation Case.

16

3.

The jury heard the evidence, deliberated for fifteen minutes, and returned a verdict of ―Not Guilty‖ on the first ballot.

47.

In Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (1853), a large fire threatened the unburned half of the then small town of San Francisco. A public officer ordered the destruction of houses to create a firebreak and was subsequently sued by one of the owners. On appeal, the California Supreme Court held that the action was proper because:

1.

48.

The right to destroy property, to prevent the spread of a conflagration, has been traced to the highest law of necessity, and the natural rights of man, independent of society and the civil government. "It is referred by moralists and jurists as the same great principle which justifies the exclusive appropriation of a plank in a shipwreck, though the life of another be sacrificed; with the throwing overboard goods in a tempest, for the safety of the vessel; with the trespassing upon the lands of another, to escape death by an enemy. It rests upon the maxim, Necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private." [Necessity leads to privileges because of private justice].

Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:

49.

In State v. Mouer (Columbia Co. Dist. Ct., Dec. 12-16, 1977), dozens of protestors in Oregon who were conducting a civil disobedience sit-in at a nuclear power plant were arrested and charged with criminal trespass. At trial, the judge allowed the defendants to raise the state necessity defense (called the choice of evils defense) and the defendants were acquitted by the jury.

50.

In People v. Brown (Lake County, Jan. 1979), protesters in Illinois blocked the entrance to a nuclear power plant and were charged with criminal trespass. Relying on the defense of necessity, they argued that they had not created the situation that they had sought to correct and had reasonably believed that their conduct was necessary to avoid the harm of a nuclear accident. A doctor testified for the defense about the damaging effects of low-level radiation. All of the defendants were subsequently acquitted.

51.

In People v. Block (Galt Judicial Dist., Sacramento Co. Mun. Ct., Aug. 14, 1979), eleven California protestors were charged with trespass and resisting arrest in connection with a March 31, 1979 demonstration at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant. The defendants had climbed over a fence and staged a sit-in on the grounds of the plant. At trial, the judge allowed the necessity defense to be presented to the jury. ―After seven weeks of trial, nine of the defendants received a split jury verdict and one was acquitted, apparently because he had a long history of activism and had convinced the jury that he had exhausted all legal means to stop the harm‖ posed by the power plant. The cases against those defendants who received a split jury verdict were eventually dropped.

52.

In California v. Lemnitzer, No. 27106E (Pleasanton-Livermore Mun. Ct. Feb. 1, 1982) the trial of a protestor who condemned the development of nuclear weapons at the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California ended in a hung jury after the court allowed the presentation

17

of evidence supporting the necessity defense. On retrial, the protestor, John Lemnitzer, was acquitted.

53.

In Vermont v. Keller, No. 1372-4-84-CNCR (Vt. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 1984) protestors staged a sit-in at the Vermont office of United States Senator Robert Stafford in an effort to get a public meeting about American policy in Central America. These actions resulted in their arrest on trespass charges. At trial, the court allowed the defendants to raise the defenses of necessity, international law, including the Nuremberg principles, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court allowed a number of impressive experts60 to testify about human rights atrocities in El Salvador and Nicaragua, as well as the important role of protest in American foreign policy. The defendants further testified they had attempted ―every reasonable manner to communicate‖ with the Senator.61 The jury acquitted all of the defendants.

54.

In Michigan v. Jones et al., Nos. 83-101194-101228 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1984) the State of Michigan held nine separate trials prosecuting fifty-one defendants who blocked access to a plant where cruise missile engines were being manufactured. The defendants were charged with trespass, disturbing the peace, blocking access, and conspiracy. In a trial where the necessity defense was allowed, the jury acquitted the defendants of all charges except failure to obey a traffic officer. In other cases where the necessity defense was allowed, the juries acquitted the defendants on all charges. In trials where the judge did not allow necessity defenses, the defendants were convicted on several counts.

55.

In Michigan v. Largrou, Nos. 85-000098, 99, 100, 102 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1985), three protestors at a Michigan cruise missile plant were charged in 1985 with trespass and criminal damage to a fence. The court found that although the defendants willfully violated the law, they did so without malice and for the public purpose of protest. All three were acquitted.

56.

In People v. Jarka, Nos. 002170, 002196-002212, 00214, 00236, 00238 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Apr. 15, 1985), an Illinois jury acquitted twenty defendants who protested against the American military invasion of Central America by conducting a sit-in which blocked the road to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. The protestors successfully invoked the doctrine of necessity and were allowed to put eight expert witnesses on the stand to offer evidence of the effect of nuclear weapons, American intervention in Central America, and international law. The trial judge gave the jury an instruction62 that stated that the threat and use of nuclear weapons violated international law.

57.

In Chicago v. Streeter, Nos. 85-108644, 48, 49, 51, 52, 120323, 26, 27 (Cir. Ct., Cook County Ill. May 1985), a jury was faced with eight protestors who were charged with trespass for refusing to leave the office of the South African consul. The jury was allowed

60

The expert witnesses included: Sonya Hernández (political violence in El Salvador), Janet Shenk (human rights in El Salvador), Phil Bourgois (Salvadoran refugees), Shaila Sherwin (refugees), David Rosenberg (United States/contra war on Nicaragua), David McMichael (contra aid), Richard Garfield (health programs of Nicaraguan Government), John Stockwell (CIA activities), Howard Zinn (history of American protest movements), Matthew Countryman (American military aid to Central America), Gladys Sánchez (government repression of Salvadoran churches), Richard Falk, and Ramsey Clark (citizens‘ role in American foreign policy). See also National Lawyers Guild 1985 Convention Workshop, Creative Defenses in Civil Disobedience Cases, 42 GUILD PRAC. 97-98 (1985) 61 People v. Gray, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 861 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1991) quoting Keller, No. 1372-4-84-CNCR. 62 The jury was instructed: ―The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is a war crime or an attempted war crime because such use would violate international law by causing unnecessary suffering, failing to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants and poisoning its targets by radiation.‖ FRANCIS ANTHONY BOYLE, THE CRIMINALITY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE 41 (2002).

18

to hear expert evidence about the defense of necessity and international crimes committed by the apartheid policies of South Africa. It took the jury two and a half hours to acquit the defendants.

58.

In Washington v. Heller (Seattle Mun. Ct. 1985), eight doctors were charged with trespassing for protests staged on the porch of the home of the South African consul. They were allowed to raise the defense of necessity and admit expert testimony about the medical and other effects of apartheid. The Seattle jury acquitted after little more than an hour and made a post-trial statement supporting anti-apartheid protests.63

59.

In Colorado v. Bock (Denver County Ct. June 12, 1985), twenty-two Pledge of Resistance members were charged with trespass for occupying the office of a United States Senator from Colorado to protest American policy in Central America. The jurors, who were allowed to hear evidence of necessity, were instructed that the defendants could use civil disobedience only as an ―emergency measure to avoid imminent public or private injury‖ but that the injury did not have to be directed against the defendants. The jury acquitted all of the defendants.

60.

In Massachusetts v. Carter, No. 86-45 CR 7475 (Hampshire Dist. Ct. 1987), the daughter of former President Jimmy Carter, Amy Carter, was arrested with fifty-nine others and charged with trespass and disorderly conduct at Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) recruitment activities on the campus of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The fifteen defendants were allowed to present evidence to support the necessity defense, international law, and the Nuremberg principles. The defendants argued that the crimes they committed were of far lesser harm than those being committed by the CIA in Central America and offered testimony by a former contra leader and former CIA and government officials. The judge instructed the jury that they could acquit the defendants if they concluded that the defendants acted out of a belief that their protest would help stop the clear and immediate threat of public harm. The jury acquitted them in three hours.

61.

In Washington v. Bass, Nos. 4750-038, -395 to -400 (Thurston County Dist. Ct. April 8, 1987), several dozen students of Evergreen State College sat in the Washington State Capitol in support of an anti-apartheid disinvestment bill. Seven students refused orders to leave and were arrested and charged with trespass and disorderly conduct. At their trial, the defendants were allowed to admit statistical and expert evidence of necessity, international law, and the Nuremberg defense about the situation in South Africa. The jury acquitted all of the defendants.

62.

In Illinois v. Fish (Skokie Cir. Ct. Aug. 1987) twenty-six people were arrested for trespassing at the Arlington Heights Army Reserve Training Center. The trial court allowed the jury to hear evidence about the necessity defense. All of the defendants were acquitted.

63.

In State v. McMillan, No. D 00518 (San Luis Obispo Jud. Dist. Mun. Ct., Cal. Oct. 13, 1987), fourteen protestors blockaded Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant to prevent the loading of fuel rods. The trial judge allowed fourteen expert witnesses to offer testimony

63

In post-trial comments, the jury stated: ―only when arrests made in protests against apartheid were efforts made to reform the system.‖ Val Varney, Eight Apartheid Protestors Win Acquittal, SEATTLE TIMES, Aug. 8, 1985, at D2.

19

about related potential harm for the area and allowed the defendants to testify about their own related fears. The judge applied the necessity defense and acquitted the defendants.

64.

In 1988, a North Carolina court acquitted two Tuscarora Indians of charges in connection with their taking of twenty hostages at the office of a local newspaper to protest the alleged corruption of county officials.64

65.

In Massachusetts v. Schaeffer-Duffy (Worcester Dist. Ct. 1989), five defendants tried to pass out leaflets to employees at a GTE nuclear weapons facility and prayed outside the building when they were denied entry. The judge denied the prosecutor‘s motion in limine to prevent evidence of necessity. The jury was allowed to hear the defendants‘ testimony about their personal efforts to stop nuclear weapons and their religious beliefs, and expert testimony about the threats of the MX missile, religious teachings against nuclear weapons, and the historical effectiveness of civil disobedience. The jury acquitted the defendants of trespass.

66.

In 1990, in Omaha, Nebraska, a jury acquitted seventeen anti-abortion protestors because of the necessity defense. The trial judge relied on the defense to overturn the trespassing convictions of an additional eighteen defendants.65

67.

IN West Valley City v. Hirshi, No. 891003031-3 MC (Salt Lake County, Ut. Cir. Ct., W. Valley Dept. 1990), protestors were charged with criminal trespass after entering property on which Trident II nuclear missile engines were being manufactured in Salt Lake City. The trial judge permitted evidence and instructed the jury on defenses based on necessity, international law, the First Amendment, and the Nuremberg Principles. The jury acquitted the defendants.

68.

In People v. Gray, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 861-62 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1991), a two-day bench trial resulted in the acquittal of six protestors for disorderly conduct because of the necessity defense. The protestors had blocked traffic in Manhattan to protest the opening of a bike and pedestrian lane to vehicular traffic. Judge Laura Safer-Espinoza issued a forty-two page decision reviewing dozens of decisions involving the necessity defense and provided the most extensive judicial overview of the necessity defense in state courts to date.

69.

In 1991, a Chicago jury acquitted a Catholic priest of criminal charges for damage to the inner-city neighborhood where he was pastor after he admitted painting over three tobacco- and alcohol-related billboards. The defendant argued he should not be convicted because of the necessity defense. The jury deliberated ninety minutes before acquitting the defendant.66

70.

In 1993, a jury acquitted a Chicago AIDS activist charged with illegally supplying clean needles because of the necessity defense.67

64

Two Carolina Indians Acquitted in Hostage Taking, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 15, 1988, at 9.

Judge Says Actions of Anti-abortionists at Clinic Justified, OMAHA WORLD-HERALD, July 17, 1990. In a seventeen-page order discussing necessity and the priority of life over property rights, District Judge Robert Burkard reversed the convictions for trespassing. An additional seventeen abortion protestors were acquitted by a jury on similar grounds in June 2000.

66 Terry Wilson, Acquittal Answers Pfleger‘s Prayers, CHI. TRIB., July 3, 1991, at 3.

67 Andrew Fegelman, AIDS Activist Found Innocent of Charges in Needle Exchange, CHI. TRIB., Jan. 28, 1993, at 4.

65

20

71.

In California v. Halem, No. 135842 (Berkeley Mun. Ct. 1991), the jury came to the same conclusion after hearing evidence that dispensing clean needles without a prescription, though illegal, was necessary to protect people from the spread of the AIDS virus.

72.

In Washington v. Brown, No. 85-1295N (Kitsap County Dist. Ct. N. 1985), twenty-four protestors held a vigil in Washington State in protest of a ―white train‖ carrying nuclear weapons. The state arrested twenty of the protestors and charged them with criminal trespass and conspiracy. The defendants filed extensive briefs on the right to present particular defenses to the jury, in support of their motion to dismiss conspiracy charges, and in opposition to the government‘s motion in limine. The judge dismissed the conspiracy charges and did not admit evidence on the necessity defense, but it did allow Daniel Ellsberg to testify as an expert on why first-strike nuclear warheads on a train are a potential threat to peace. One defendant pled guilty to both charges. The jury acquitted the remaining nineteen defendants.

73.

In Washington v. Karon, No. J85-1136-39 (Benton County Dist. Ct. 1985), four defendants blockaded

a

federal

Plutonium-Uranium

extraction

facility

at

Hanford

Nuclear

Reservation. They were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and failure to disperse. The defendants filed motions in limine to raise necessity, Nuremberg principles, and the Geneva and Hague Conventions as defenses. The trial judge allowed Nuremberg and necessity defenses, permitted expert testimony regarding radiation contamination, and refused expert testimony regarding nuclear war. The court agreed to give international law instructions to the jury. Immediately after the court ruling permitting scientists to testify on radiation contamination, the prosecution moved to dismiss the case and the court granted the motion.

74.

In United States v. Braden (W.D. Ky. 1985), twenty-nine demonstrators entered the office of a United States senator as part of the Pledge of Resistance. At their arraignment, the defendants announced their intent to use Nuremberg, necessity, and First Amendment defenses (freedom of speech includes freedom to be heard; today the only way to be heard is to act). The government dropped all charges prior to trial.

75.

In California v. Jerome, Nos. 5450895, 5451038, 5516177, 5516159 (Livermore-Pleasanton Mun. Ct., Alameda County, Traffic Div. 1987), more than thirty protestors blocked the main gate to the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab in a nonviolent sit-in. They were arrested for traffic offenses of blocking and delaying traffic. The Traffic Commissioner agreed to consider expert testimony on the necessity defense and international law (including Nuremberg Principles, Geneva Protocols, and the Hague Convention) via affidavits. The defendants filed affidavits for Daniel Ellsberg (on the effectiveness of nonviolent protests in arousing citizen action), Frank Newman (on international law) and Charles Schwartz (on the role of Livermore Lab in promoting the arms race). Before trial, the judge granted the prosecution‘s request to drop all charges.

76.

Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law:

21

77.

As stated at Crimes of War68 and Diakona69: Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL.

78.

Wikipedia: Reasonable Laypersons Understanding of Military Necessity:

79.

Wikipediaâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s description of Military Necessity says â&#x20AC;&#x201C; among others - the following:

80.

â&#x20AC;&#x2022;Military necessity is governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

81.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of War Crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and he published an open letter70 containing his findings. In a section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes " he did not call it military necessity but summed up the term: 1.

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute 71, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

2.

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:

3.

Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

4.

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:

5.

(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;

68

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/military-necessity/ http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=888 70 http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BB-B899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf 71 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute 69

22

6.

(b) the anticipated military advantage;

7.

(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

8.

— Luis Moreno-Ocampo

82.

Military Necessity: use of Nuclear Weapons for Self-Preservation:

83.

“Some commentators who rightly reject Kriegsrason still advocate a scope of military necessity that would, under certain circumstances, go beyond express exceptional clauses. For example, in Julius Stone‘s view, military necessity does - or should, in any event - entitle a state at war to depart from its duties under international law on account of self-preservation. Stone clearly embraced the criticism of what he called military necessity in ―such an extended German sense.‖ His doubts concerned whether this criticism, while valid in relation to Kriegsrason, could be defensibly extended so as to exclude self-preservation.

84.

“In its advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) observed that such threat or use would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law. The opinion went on to state, however, that the court ―cannot lose sight of the fundamental right of every State to survival, and thus its right to resort to self-defence . . . when its survival is at stake.‖ The court held, by seven votes to seven, with its president‘s casting vote, that it ―cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self defence in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.‖‖

85.

Simplistically concluded: If the goal of demographic self preservation by avoiding an impending collision of Titanic Europe with Islam iceberg is affirmed as legitimate, ―what is deemed materially necessary in view of that legitimate goal becomes prima facie permissible and what is deemed materially unnecessary becomes impermissible.‖

86.

Military Necessity in Nuremberg German High Command Trial:

87.

In the TRIAL OF WILHELM VON LEEB AND THIRTEEN OTHERS: UNITED STATES MILITARY TRIBUNAL, NUREMBERG, 30TH DECEMBER, 1947-28TH OCTOBER, 194872

88.

Wilhelm von Leeb and the other thirteen accused in this case were former highranking officers in the German Army and Navy, and officers holding high positions in the German High Command (OKW). All of them were charged with Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and with Conspiracy to commit such crimes. The War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity charged against them included criminal responsibility in connection with the implementation and execution of the so-called Commissar Order, the Bar-barossa Jurisdiction Order, the Commando Order, the Night and Fog Decree, the Hostages and Reprisals Orders,

72

http://www.worldcourts.com/imt/eng/decisions/1948.10.28_United_States_v_von_Leeb.pdf

23

murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war and of the civilian population in the occupied territories and their use in prohibited work; discrimination against and persecution and execution of Jews and other sections of the population by the Wehrmacht in co-operation with the Einsatzgruppen and Sonderkommandos of the SD, SIPO and the Secret Field Police; plunder and spoliation and the enforcement of the slave labour programme of the Reich.

89.

They were acquitted of some of the charges, where it was ascertained that military necessity existed objectively and/or subjectively in the particular circumstances.

90.

The Tribunal argued that ―The devastation prohibited by the Hague Rules and the usages of war is that not warranted by military necessity. This rule is clear enough but the factual determination as to what constitutes military necessity is difficult. Defendants in this case were in many instances in retreat under arduous conditions wherein their commands were in serious danger of being cut off. Under such circumstances, a commander must necessarily make quick decisions to meet the particular situation of his command. A great deal of latitude must be accorded to him under such circumstances. What constitutes devastation beyond military necessity in these situations requires detailed proof of an operational and tactical nature. We do not feel that in this case the proof is ample to establish the guilt of any defendant herein on this charge.‖

91.

[..] The second remark of the Prosecution would command universal respect, but the Tribunal would appear to have rejected the argument that the accused could never plead military necessity in the course of a criminal war;(1) it conceded that the plea of military necessity did, in the circum-stances proved, serve to exculpate the accused on certain charges concerning spoliation. It was emphasized that the defendants were ―in many instances in retreat under arduous conditions wherein their commands were in serious danger of being cut off. Under such circumstances, a com-mander must necessarily make quick decisions to meet the particular situation of his command. A great deal of latitude must be accorded to him under" such circumstances. What constitutes devastation beyond military necessity in these situations requires detailed proof of an operational and tactical nature.‖(2)

92.

Thus, in dealing with Reinhardt's alleged responsibility for plunder and spoliation, the Tribunal said: ―The evidence on the matter of plunder and spoliation shows great ruthlessness, but we are not satisfied that it shows beyond a reasonable doubt, acts that were not justified by military necessity.‖

93.

Military Necessity: The Rendulic Rule: Importance of the Subjective Test:

94.

In The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, Gary D Solis provides an overview of the Rendulic Rule in evaluation of the subjective test in evaluating a defence of Military Necessity:

24

95.

―Now, the moral point of view derives its legitimacy from the perspective of the actor.

When we make moral judgements, we try to recapture that perspective.‖

96.

―In October 1944, Generaloberst Lothar Rendulic was Armed Forces Commander North, which included command of Nazi Forces in Norway. (Between World Wars I and II, Rendulic had practiced law in his native Austria.) Following World War II, he was prosecuted for, among other charges, issuing an order ―for the complete destruction of all shelter and means of existence in, and the total evacuation of the entire civilian population of the northern Norwegian province of Finmark...‖ Entire villages were destroyed, bridges and highways bombed, and port installations wrecked. Tried by an American military commission, Rendulic's defence was military necessity. He presented evidence that the Norwegian population would not voluntarily evacuate and that rapidly approaching Russian forces would use existing housing as shelter and exploit the local population's knowledge of the area to the detriment of retreating German forces. The Tribunal acquitted Rendulic of the charge, finding reasonable his belief that military necessity mandated his orders. His case offers one of the few adjudicated views of what constitutes military necessity.

97.

―Obviously, it is especially difficult to render convincing second opinions when assessing, after the fact, the necessity and economy of battlefield tactical decisions. Nevertheless, the very fact that military and civilian tacticians have been accountable to second opinions - for example, to the 'reasonable commander' test - must have some restraining effect on the choice of measures employed in battle.

98.

―These extracts are from the record of Rendulic's trial.

99.

From Count two of the group indictment:

100.

9.a. On or about 10 October 1944, the Commander in Chief of the 20th Mountain Army, the defendant Rendulic, issued an order to troops under his command and jurisdiction, for the complete destruction of all shelter and means of existence in, and the total evacuation of the entire civilian population of, the northern Norwegian province of Finmark. During the months of October and November 1944, this order was effectively and ruthlessly carried out. For no compelling military reasons, and in literal execution of instructions to show no sympathy to the civilian population, the evacuated residents were made to witness the burning of their homes and possessions and the destruction of churches, public buildings, food supplies, barns, livestock, bridges, transport facilities, and natural resources of an area in which they and their families had lived for generations. Relatives and friends were separated, many of the evacuees became ill from cold and disease, hundreds died from exposure or perished at sea in the small boats and fishing smacks used in the evacuation, while still others were summarily shot for refusing to leave their homeland - in all, the thoroughness and brutality of this evacuation left some 61,000 men, women, and children homeless, starving and destitute.

101.

From the opening statement of the Chief Prosecutor, Brigadier General Telford Taylor:

25

102.

Late in October 1944, the German High Command... issued the following order to Rendulic....

103.

―Because of the unwillingness of the northern Norwegian population to voluntarily evacuate, the Fuehrer has.. ordered that the entire Norwegian population east of the fiord Lyngen be evacuated by force in the interest of their own security and that all homes are to be burned down and destroyed.

104.

―[Rendulic] is responsible that the Fuehrer's order is carried out without consideration.

Only by this method can it be prevented that the Russians with strong forces, and aided by these homes and the people familiar with the terrain, follow our withdrawal operations...

This is not the place for sympathy for the civilian population.

105.

―It must be made clear to the troops engaged in this action that the Norwegians will be thankful in a few months that they were saved from bolshevism...‖

106.

.... This ruthless and in large part unnecessary decision was carried out by Rendulic's forces according to plan. Northern Norway, from Kirkenes nearly to Tromso, was turned into an Arctic desert.

107.

From the opening statement of Dr. Hans Laternser, one of the accuseds defense counsel:

108.

In the case of the measures with which the defendants here are being charged the principle of military necessity plays an important role. This principle, which formed the basis of all German military measures, was formulated in paragraph 4 of the American ―Rules of Land Warfare‖ as the highest general principle of warfare and recognized to a very far-reaching degree.

109.

This principle, however, must not be scrutinized in an abstract manner, but must be considered in connection with the conditions with which the accused were confronted and under which they had to discharge their task.... Nothing of what forms the subject of this trial can be understood if considered apart from the fundamentals, as is done by the prosecution.

110.

From the testimony of the accused justifying the destruction carried out at his order, that portion offered here being only a small portion of his testimony:

111.

Everybody [in the German forces] was aware of the difficulty of the position. From censorship of soldiers male we learned that the morale of the soldiers sometimes bordered on panic... There was a very dangerous crisis among the [German] soldiers especially with regard to confidence in their leaders which could have led to catastrophe... At first sight on might suppose that marching [pursuing Russian] troops would only need the localities along the march route for quarters, but that is not the case... The villages along the march route were never sufficient for the accommodation of the marching troops.

26

112.

Instead, these troops also had to use those places which were a good distance away from the march route.. when it was necessary to quarter them in houses, etc., and that would have undoubtedly been necessary at that time in Finmark because of the climate...

113.

The inhabited localities along the coast and along the fjords were of the same significance... It further has to be considered that an army does not only march; it also has to live, especially when it is supposed to prepare for an attack. Then the army is apt to spread over the whole country. Not only do the troops have to be accommodated but there are also many installations to be taken care of such as work shops, hospitals, depots, installations for supply; and for all these installations everything that was there concerning houses, etc., was necessary to accommodate all these operations and that was the military significance of the apparently far distant inhabited localities....

114.

.. You must not think that we destroyed wantonly or senselessly. Everything we did was dictated by the needs of the enemy. That was its necessity...

115.

... I did not think it was absolutely necessary to transfer the population to other areas but I could not close my eyes to Hitler's reasons of military necessity. I could not deny that they were justified.

116.

Finally, I had to tell myself that it would possibly be better for the population to be transferred to other areas rather than to spend the hard winter in the destroyed country. I participated in both winter battles in Russia. Therefore, I know what flight from cold means. I had to realize that the Russians, if they followed us.... it was certain that they would not spare the population. Therefore, in the final analysis it was the best thing for the population that they were removed....

117.

I attached the greatest importance to good relations between myself and the Norwegian population. For this reason alone I insisted that the evacuation should not give any cause for misgivings among the population. You may also rest assured that if any kind of excesses had become known to me, any unnecessary harshness or any inconsideration, I would have taken countermeasures immediately....

118.

From the closing arguments of Mr. Walter Rapp, Associate Prosecution Counsel:

119.

The argument of the defence of military necessity is unconvincing here for several reasons. In the first place... the plea of military necessity can never be used as a defense for taking an unarmed civilian's life...

120.

In the second place, it is inconsistent to attempt to defend the same action by the plea of superior orders and also by that of military necessity because the two are mutually exclusive. If an act was committed solely because of superior orders, then presumably there was no military necessity for doing it; whereas if it was done because of military necessity, it would have been done anyhow regardless of the existence or non-existence of superior orders.

27

121.

In the third place, the defence of military necessity flies into the teeth of all the available evidence here....

122.

From the Tribunals opinion:

123.

Military necessity has been invoked by the defendant's as justifying.. the destruction of villages and towns in an occupied territory... The destruction of property to be lawful must be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war... There must be some reasonable connection between the destruction of property and the overcoming of the enemy forces. It is lawful to destroy railways, lines of communication, or any other property that might be utilized by the enemy. Private homes and churches even may be destroyed if necessary for military operations. It does not admit the wanton devastation of a district or the wilful infliction of suffering upon its inhabitants for the sake of suffering alone...

124.

The evidence shows that the Russians had very excellent troops in pursuit of the Germans.

Two or three land routes were open to them as well as landings by sea behind German lines... The information obtained concerning the intentions of the Russians was limited.. It was with this situation confronting him that he carried out the "scorched earth" policy in the Norwegian province of Finmark.. The destruction was as complete as an efficient army could do it...

125.

There is evidence in the record that there was no military necessity for this destruction and devastation. An examination of the facts in retrospect can well sustain this conclusion. But we are obliged to judge the situation as it appeared to the defendant at the time. If the facts were such as would justify the action by the exercise of judgement, after giving consideration to all the factors and existing possibilities, even though the conclusion reached may have been faulty, it cannot be said to be criminal. After giving careful consideration to all the evidence on the subject, we are convinced that the defendant cannot be held criminally responsible although when viewed in retrospect, the danger did not actually exist....

126.

..... We are not called upon to determine whether urgent military necessity for the devastation and destruction in the province of Finmark actually existed. We are concerned with the question whether the defendant at the time of its occurrence acted within the limits of honest judgement on the basis of the conditions prevailing at the time. The course of a military operation by the enemy is loaded with uncertainties...

It is our considered opinion that the conditions, as they appeared to the defendant at the time, were sufficient upon which he could honestly conclude that urgent military necessity warranted the decision made. This being true, the defendant may have erred in the exercise of his judgement but he was guilty of no criminal act. We find the defendant not guilty of the charge. (added emphasis)

127.

The Rendulic standard remains unchanged. Fifty-four years later, in 2003, the ICTY wrote: â&#x20AC;&#x2022;In determining whether an attack was proportionate it is necessary to examine whether a

28

reasonably well-informed person in the circumstances of the actual perpetrator, making reasonable use of the information available to him or her, could have expected excessive civilian casualties to result from the attack.â&#x20AC;&#x2013;73

128.

Military Necessity: Rendulic Rule: Subjective Honesty in current Military Doctrine:

129.

In Unexpected Consequences From Knock-On Effects: A Different Standard for Computer Network Operations?, Eric Talbot Jensen writes:

130.

The standard the Court held General Rendulic to was the requirement to give "consideration to all factors and existing possibilities" as they "appeared to the defendant at the time."'

131.

While

the

specific

facts

of the

case

dealt

with

General

Rendulic's decision

concerning the military necessity of his action, the Court's reasoning reflects that this standard is not confined to solely that decision, but would also apply to a commander's decision contemplated in GPI Articles 51 and 57. This is the same standard with which military commanders contemplating the use of CAN must comply.

132.

Note

that

the

requirement

to

give

consideration

to

all

factors

and existing

possibilities is balanced with the overarching constraint of taking facts as they appear at the time of the decision. Must the commander remain in inaction until he feels he has turned over every stone in search of that last shred of information concerning all factors and possibilities that might affect his decision? The answer must be "no." Instead, he must act in good faith and, in accordance with GPI, do everything feasible to get this information.

133.

GPI Article 57, paragraph 2 states: 1.

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

2.

(a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:

3.

(i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;

4.

(ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects

134.

This requirement of doing everything feasible underlies the â&#x20AC;&#x2014;Rendulic Rule.'

135.

Once a commander has done everything feasible to gather information and learn the specific circumstances of the object of his attack, he can rely on those facts in taking action.

73

Prosecutor v. Galic

29

136.

Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity?:

137.

In South African law the Onus of Proof lies on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity.

138.

In S v Pretorius 1975 (2) SA 85 (SWA) Judge AJ Le Grange found that ‗Despite the accused‘s plea of guilty, it appears from all the evidence on the record that an offence was not committed. In the result, the conviction and sentence, must, be set aside.‘ 1.

[87] The accused who had no legal representation, referred, despite his plea of guilty, to circumstances which materially gave rise to the defence of necessity.

This defence made it necessary for the magistrate to decide in the first instance not what the accused‘s frame of mind had been, but whether necessity was present and whether it justified the accused‘s conduct. .. The Judge ‗could find no cases and the Court did not refer to any where the question had been finally decided whether the test for necessity relates to an objective emergency or to a subjective frame of mind (or fear)…..

2.

[88] There is, however, nothing in my humble opinion, in the cases referred to or in any other cases, which I could find, which could serve as authority for the proposition that necessity cannot also be viewed as ―a ground of justification‖.

The question whether the defence of justification amounts to a ground of justification or to a circumstance excluding fault, has been thoroughly canvassed

by De Wet and Swanepoel in their said work as well as by Burchell & Hunt in their revised edition of S.A. Criminal Law and Procedure, Part 1….

3.

[89] The onus of proof in a defence of necessity as in self-defence rests on the State to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity. It is not for the accused to satisfy the court that she acted from necessity (p 293). [(proceed) by gathering an objective view of the circumstances from the evidence itself, and the magistrate‘s finding whether the prevailing circumstances were ‗alarming‘ if viewed objectively…. Viewed objectively… was the accused confronted with a situation that …… lives were in danger….

4.

[90] [If the evidence gives a picture of threatening danger and fear, which gave rise to necessity and which would have justified the accused‘s conduct, provided the accused did not exceed the limits of necessity…. Proceed to consider whether the proven circumstances satisfy the tests for necessity set out by B & Hunt at p.

285 of their work: (a) the threatening disaster endangered the accused‘s legal interests. This in fact gave rise to a duty to act. (b) the danger was threatening and imminent. The fact that symptoms relating to the danger may only appear later does not detract from the situation… if it cannot immediately be ascertained whether or not the symptoms are dangerous, necessity arises… (d) the chances that harm would have resulted and it would have been of a serious nature.. the greater the harm, the greater the necessity…

139.

If Norwegian law also places the Onus of Proof to lie on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity; it would appear

30

that the Prosecutor‘s decision to ‗refuse to touch the principle of necessity‘ should weigh heavily in the Defendant‘s favour.

140.

Even if Norwegian law places the Onus of Proof on the Defendant in a defence of Necessity, to prove the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, the Prosecutions decision to ‗refuse to touch the principle of necessity‘ should again weigh heavily in the Defendant‘s favour; unless the Prosecution could and did provide a reasonable argument for their failure to uphold their duty for enquire into the objective and subjective evidence for the Defendant‘s Necessity defence.

141.

Transparency Disclosure: Correspondence to Mr. Breivik and Mr. Geir Lippestad:

142.

12 August 2012: Correspondence to Mr. Geir Lippestad74 Request for Clarification regarding Defence Counsel‟s focus on „sane/safety‟ issue, while seemingly ignoring the „innocence/guilt‟ issue, thereby denying Breivik‟s right to Impartial trial to enquire into the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence.

Questions I have:

143.

1.

Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik‘s claim of necessity?

2.

Is it common for Norwegian Prosecutors to refuse to provide the court with the Prosecutor‘s Office assessment of an accused‘s evidence for their claim of necessity?

3.

In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity?

4.

Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik‘s claims of necessity?

5.

Why did your Defence of Breivik state that the only issues before the court – as the media have been reporting and you said to the court – are the sane/safety issue?

6.

How exactly can the only issue before the court be the ‗sane/safety‘; since when is the ‗guilt/innocence‘ issue irrelevant in a political criminal trial?

7.

If Lippestad attorney‘s are denying the court to be required to seriously examine the necessity evidence for Breivik‘s guilt or innocence; upon what grounds and authority did Lippestad Attorney‘s find Breivik to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

8.

Or is it a matter of first ascertaining Breivik‘s sanity; and then if, or when Breivik is finally deemed sane, does he then get a new trial with a focus on ‗guilty/innocence‘ issue; to determine his innocence or guilt, based upon the evidence for and against his necessity defence?

9.

If not, when exactly is Breivik entitled to an impartial trial where the issue before the court is Breivik‘s ‗guilt/innocence‘ and Prosecutors and Defence Counsel are required to seriously legally examine the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence?

13 August 2012: Correspondence to Mr. Breivik [Annex D] Request Clarification: RE: Habeus Mentem, Amicus Curiae and Review Applications Filed: I am not quite clear. You acknowledge receipt of the legal applications I filed in the Norway v. Breivik matter, but refer to them as ‗my letter and email compaigns‘? Do you dispute their contents as being unworthy of being considered legal applications; and if so, could you

74

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120813_lipp-bnecc_10001.html

31

clarify how and why you do so? Or why do you refer to these legal applications as ‗letters and emails‘.

In terms of my definition of ‗honour‘; to be ‗honourable‘ is to legally acknowledge the application by responding to the issues raised therein, as part of court procedure.

If you do not dispute them as legal applications: Could you please clarify what exactly your instructions were to your Attorneys in response to the applications I filed in Oslo District Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity) and Judge Wenche (Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court) and the Norwegian Supreme Court: Review and Declaratory Order.

Request Clarification: What were your instructions to your attorney‟s regarding „Guilt / Innocence: Necessity‟ Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that your claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: you did not subjectively believe your claims of necessity; its all just propaganda bullshit.

Your testimony, on the other hand, repeatedly focussed on your claim of necessity as the source for your innocence.

So, I am confused: If you sincerely believe your claims of innocence and necessity: 

At the very least: Why have you not instructed Mr. Lippestad to retract his statements that contradict yours?



If he refuses: Why have you not publicly stated your lawyers refusal to follow your instructions and placed the dispute transparently before the court, as a matter of court record?



Or, is Lippestad telling the truth; and you really don‘t subjectively believe in your necessity claim towards innocence, you are simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda?

See Annex F: Letter to Mr. Lippestad: Request for Clarification regarding Defence Counsel‟s focus on „sane/safety‟ issue, while seemingly ignoring the „innocence/guilt‟ issue, thereby denying Breivik‟s right to Impartial trial to enquire into the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence.

144.

Environmental Transparency: Aarhus Convention:

145.

CONVENTION ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISIONMAKING AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS, done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 199875 1.

Each Party shall take the necessary legislative, regulatory and other measures, including measures to achieve compatibility between the provisions implementing the information, public participation and access-to-justice provisions in this Convention, as well as proper enforcement measures, to establish and maintain a clear, transparent and consistent framework to implement the provisions of this Convention.

2.

Each Party shall endeavour to ensure that officials and authorities assist and provide guidance to the public in seeking access to information, in facilitating participation in decision-making and in seeking access to justice in environmental matters.

3.

Each Party shall promote environmental education and environmental awareness among the public, especially on how to obtain access to information, to participate in decision-making and to obtain access to justice in environmental matters.

75

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf

32

4.

Each Party shall provide for appropriate recognition of and support to associations, organizations or groups promoting environmental protection and ensure that its national legal system is consistent with this obligation.

5.

The provisions of this Convention shall not affect the right of a Party to maintain or introduce measures providing for broader access to information, more extensive public participation in decision-making and wider access to justice in environmental matters than required by this Convention.

6.

This Convention shall not require any derogation from existing rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.

7.

Each Party shall promote the application of the principles of this Convention in international environmental decision-making processes and within the framework of international organizations in matters relating to the environment.

8.

Each Party shall ensure that persons exercising their rights in conformity with the provisions of this Convention shall not be penalized, persecuted or harassed in any way for their involvement. This provision shall not affect the powers of national courts to award reasonable costs in judicial proceedings.

9.

Within the scope of the relevant provisions of this Convention, the public shall have access to information, have the possibility to participate in decision-making and have access to justice in environmental matters without discrimination as to citizenship, nationality or domicile and, in the case of a legal person, without discrimination as to where it has its registered seat or an effective centre of its activities.

146.

ECHR: Lithgow on Transparency: Precise and Accessible Legislation:

147.

In Lithgow & others v United Kingdom76, the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law: ―As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law‖, it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68).‖

148.

The interests of justice:

149.

I submit that it is in the interests of justice that review be approved, as there are significant prospects of success, should the court be willing to discard its attachment to Patriarchal Mono-Cultural Masculine Insecurity Ego, instead of Ecologically driven lawmaking, and sincerely adopt multicultural law-making, by drawing on legal cultural diversity, to establish ‗what works‘ to resolve disputes, instead of endorsing the Left vs.

Right Wing Parasite Leeching blame game.

76

Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html

33

150.

Multi-cultural Law Must (a) avoid Mono-cultural legal Hegemony, (b) draw on legal cultural diversity:

151.

Opinion of Weeramantry J in Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) 77, clarifies multi-culti lawmaking: The need for International law to draw upon Worlds Diversity of Cultures in Harmonizing Development and Environmental Protection In drawing into international law the benefits of the insights available from other cultures, and in looking to the past for inspiration, international environmental law would not be departing from traditional methods of international law, but would, in fact, be following in the path charted out by Grotius. Rather than laying down a set of principles a priori for the new discipline of international law, he sought them also a posteriori from the experience of the past, searching through a whole range of cultures available to him for this purpose 78.

From them he drew the durable principles which had weathered the ages, on which to build the new international order of the future. Environmental law is now in a formative stage, not unlike international law in its early stages. A wealth of past experience from a variety of cultures is available to it. It would be pity indeed if it were left untapped merely because of attitudes of formalism which see such approaches as not being entirely de rigueur.

I cite in this connection an observation of Sir Robert Jennings that, in taking note of different legal traditions and cultures, the International Court (as it did in the Western Sahara) case: ―was asserting, not negating, the Grotian subjection of the totality of international relations to international law. It seems to the writer, indeed, that at the present juncture in the development of the international legal system it may be more important to stress the imperative need to develop international law to comprehend within itself the rich diversity of cultures, civilizations and legal traditions….‖ 79 Moreover, especially at the frontiers of the discipline of international law, it needs to be multi-disciplinary, drawing from other disciplines such as history, sociology, anthropology, and psychology such wisdom as may be relevant for its purpose. On the need for the international law of the future to be disciplinary, I refer to another recent extra-judicial observation of distinguished former President of the Court that: ―there should be a much greater, and a practical, recognition by international lawyers that the rule of law in international affairs, and the establishment of international justice, are inter-disciplinary subjects80.

Especially where this Court is concerned, ―the essence of true universality‖ of the institution is captured in the language of Article 9 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice which requires the ―representation of the main forms of civilization and of the principle legal systems of the world.‖ (emphasis added)…. I see the Court as being charged with a duty to draw upon the wisdom of the worlds several civilizations, where such a course can enrich its insights into the matter before it. The Court cannot afford to be monocultural, especially where it is entering newly developing areas of law.

152.

Conclusion:

77

Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. http://www.scribd.com/doc/34456660 78 Julius Stone, Human Law and Human Justice, 1965, p.66: ―It was for this reason that Grotius added to his theoretical deductions such a mass of concrete examples from history.‖ 79 Sir Robert Y. Jennings, Universal International Law in a Multicultural World, in International Law and the Grotian Heritage: A Commemorative Colloquium on the Occasion of the Fourth Centenary of the Birth of Hugo Grotius, edited and published by the T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, 1985, p. 195.

80 International Lawyers and the Progressive Development of International Law, Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21 st Century, Jerzy Makarczyk (ed), 1996, p 423.

34

153.

On the grounds set out above I submit that a proper case is made out for leave to review directly to this Court. The applicant accordingly requests that the application be granted in the terms sought in the notice of motion filed herewith.

Signed and Sworn to at George on this the 27th day of August 2012, the Deponent acknowledging that she knows and understands the contents of this Affidavit, and that she has no objection to taking the prescribed oath and that the oath is binding on her conscience.

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se George, South Africa Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za Annexures: [A] 03 May 2012: Concourt Ruling: Lara Johnstone: Member of Radical Honesty culture [B] Cullinan, Cormac: Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Summary) [C] Clugston, Chris: Sustainability Defined [D] 13 Aug 2012: Letter to Mr. Anders Breivik (Enclosures81); Response to Mr. Breivik Letter82

81 82

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/rh-13-aug-2012.html http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/kt-02-july-2012.html

35

Annexure “D”

SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY

Ms. Lara Johnstone George, South Africa E-mail: jmcswan@mweb.co.za

Application for review of Oslo District Court's judgment of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24) Reference is made to your e-mails sent 27 August, 28 August and 31 August 2012 regarding the above mentioned matter.

I wish to draw your attention to the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act section 306 (a copy in English is enclosed). According to this regulation, 1st paragraph, the parties may appeal against a criminal judgment rendered by the district or appellate court. Persons or legal entities that are not parties to the case are not given the right of appeal. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these.

Consequently, the Supreme Court of Norway will not be able to comply with the request set forth in your e-mails. Further requests and applications from you will neither be handled nor answered by the Supreme Court.

Yours sincerely, Gunnar Bergby Secretary-General

Postal address: P.O. Box 8016 Dep NO-0030 Oslo, Norway

Office address: Høyesteretts plass 1 Oslo

Telephone: +47 22 03 59 00

Telefax: +47 22 33 23 55

E-mail: post@hoyesterett.no

Homepage: www.hoyesterett.n o

Annexure “E”

DECISION IN CASE 2012/2 AND CASE 2012/5 Complainant:

Defendants in case 2012/2:

in case 2012/5:

Lara Johnstone Habeus Mentem

Adresseavisen Aftenposten Bergens Tidende Dagbladet NRK TV2 VG the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee the Disciplinary Board

We refer to your appeal of June 18 2012 against Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG regarding the undertakings decline to provide a justification for the decision not to publish two articles related to the incident on July 22 2011 and terrorism. We also refer to your appeal of August 16 2012 against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board regarding their refusal to provide an environmental justification for the policy to refuse complaints by e-mail.

According to the Environmental Information Act section 16 (1) "Any person is entitled to receive environmental information from undertakings such as are mentioned in section 5, subsection 2, concerning factors related to the undertaking, including factor inputs and products, which may have an appreciable effect on the environment".

When used in the Environmental Information Act, the term "environment" means the external environment, including archaeological and architectural monuments and sites and cultural environments, cf. section 2 (2) of the act. Information regarding the social environment is thus not considered "environmental information" as the term is defined in the act. Information concerning human health, safety and living conditions, is only considered "environmental information" to the extent that these factors are or may be affected by the state of the external environment or factors that affect or may affect the environment, cf. section 2 (1).

The right to receive environmental information from undertakings is limited to information concerning factors "which may have an appreciable effect on the environment".

Concerning your first appeal, the Appeals Board for Environmental Information would like to point out that the editorial choices made by the staff working for newspapers, TV channels etc. are not factors related to the undertaking which may have an effect on the environment.

1

The information that you have requested from Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG is thus not "environmental information".

Regarding your second appeal, against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board, the Appeals Board finds that the policy to refuse complaints by e-mail is not a factor which may have an appreciable effect on the environment.

On these grounds, the Appeals Board has made the following decision: The appeals are denied as not justified.

The decision of the board is final and is not subject for further appeals. Disputes about the duties of undertakings according to The Environmental Information Act may be subject for legal proceedings.

Oslo, 10. september 2012

Hans Chr. Bugge

Morten Hugo Berger

Andreas Pihlstrøm

Karl Kristensen

Cecilie Skarning

Ina Lindahl Nyrud

2

Annexure “F”

10 September 2012

Gunnar Bergby Secretary-General / President Supreme Court of Norway PO Box 8016 Dep NO-0030 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 22 03 59 00 | Fax: +47 22 03 59 00 post@hoyesterett.no

P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 South Africa

Secretary General Bergby, Re: Sec.Gen decision of 09.09.2012, to Application for review of Oslo District Court's judgment of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24) Thanks for your undated letter, sent 10 September 2012, where you state: Reference is made to your e-mails sent 27 August, 28 August and 31 August 2012 regarding the above mentioned matter.

I wish to draw your attention to the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act section 306 (a copy in English is enclosed). According to this regulation, 1st paragraph, the parties may appeal against a criminal judgment rendered by the district or appellate court. Persons or legal entities that are not parties to the case are not given the right of appeal. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these.

Consequently, the Supreme Court of Norway will not be able to comply with the request set forth in your e-mails. Further requests and applications from you will neither be handled nor answered by the Supreme Court.

Relief Requested: Could you kindly provide me with the relevant statute in Norway that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court?

It is my understanding â&#x20AC;&#x201C; perhaps incorrect - that it is not a matter for the Secretary General to make a final ruling on the relevant locus standi / legal interest of any party in any dispute. See for example:

09/09/12 NO Supreme Crt: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby: 09.09.2012 Ruling www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited v. EFTA Surveillance Authority1 (Case E-2/94): “The Court finds that this principle must also apply when considering … whether a measure is reviewable and who has locus standi to bring an action for annulment of a decision.” (11) Private Barnehagers Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority, supported by Kingdom of Norway (Case E-5/07): The court finds…. “In Husbanken I, it was sufficient for the association whose complaint had been at the origin of the case to show that the legitimate interests of its members were affected by the decision, by affecting their position on the market; and that in this case, where the decision was a decision not to object to State aid, locus standi could even arise alone from the facts that the association was, as a representative of its members, at the origin of the complaint, that it was heard in the procedure and that information was gathered from the State in question” (66) According to Hans Chr. Bugge, Professor of Environmental Law at the Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo, in his article: General background: Legal remedies and locus standi in Norwegian law2 The general criterion for locus standi in civil court cases in Norway is that the plaintiff must have "legal interest" in the case.( Art. 54 of the Civil Proceedings Act.) The dispute must be a live controversy, and the plaintiff must have a sufficiently close connection to the subject matter so as to justify the court's treatment of the dispute. There is no clear definition or delimitation of the concept. Whether a person has "legal interest" is decided discretionary in each case, and depends on individual circumstances. The core question to ask is whether the person has reasonable grounds for having the issue tried by a court. To have "legal interest" to have a matter tried by the courts, the plaintiff must be affected by the matter to such an extent that it justifies the use of the court system. Interests which are only based on public or common rights, such as the public right of way, may be accepted if they are strong enough.

However, a purely "ideal" interest in the matter is not enough. For example, an ordinary citizen has not locus standi in a case concerning the authorities' licencing to kill wolves, based on his general interest in the protection of these predators.

Based on Supreme Court cases, it is usually accepted that nongovernmental environmental associations have "legal interest" in environmental cases. This was established by the Supreme Court in 1980 (the Alta case) The court accepted that the Norwegian Association for Nature Conservation had standing to sue the government in respect of the validity of the decision to build a hydropower dam and station on the Alta river.

In a later case, a nationwide association working to influence life style and reduce consumption, in favour of international solidarity and environmental protection, was entitled to bring an action for compensation for pollution damage on fishing and recreational areas against two chemical factories in the Southern part of Norway bordering Sweden. The local branch of the Swedish Association for Nature Conservation in the affected area, was also found to have standing in the case.

I cannot find any ruling or decision on locus standi, where it says the ‘Secretary General’ of the Courts Administration Act, ruled on a matter of locus standi. All of the locus standi decisions I could find in Norwegian law, all clearly indicate that the matter is heard by the court, not by the Secretary General of Courts Administration.

In the absence of any staturory authority granting you the Secretary General the authority to make a decision on locus standi, as far as I am aware, the matter of locus standi is consequently a matter that is dealt with by the court, not the Secretary General, or any court administration official.

Legal Standing: Party in Proceedings: 1

http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/E-2-94_Judgment.pdf

2

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~avosetta/buggeaccessnorw02.pdf

09/09/12 NO Supreme Crt: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby: 09.09.2012 Ruling www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Additionally, if there is such statutory authority granting Secretary Generals the authority to adjudicate matters of locus standi, thereby denying an applicant their hearing on a matter of locus standi by an impartial court; could you also provide me with the following evidence, to support your official decision to deny my application due process before an impartial court of law: 1. The court transcript of the day upon which Judge Nina Opsahl publicly acknowledged receipt of my Habeus Mentem (Right of Legal Sanity on behalf of Mr. Breivik) application in open court proceedings, including her interpretation of how my application was interpreted by the court (eg. intervene as a party), and the subsequent ruling by the court, approving or denying my application and decisions therefore; hence confirming my alleged ‘non-party’ status, in this matter.

2. The court transcript of the day upon which Judge Wenche Arntzen publicly acknowledged receipt of my Amicus Curiae application in open court proceedings, including her interpretation of how my application was interpreted by the court, and the subsequent ruling by the court, approving or denying my application and hence confirming my alleged ‘nonparty’ status, in this matter.

In the absence of such evidence provided to the Supreme Court by the Oslo District Court, proving that my Habeus Mentem and Amicus Curiae applications were provided impartial due process consideration and adjudication; those matters regarding my legal standing status as a ‘party, or not’ to the proceedings, remain unresolved, and can only be resolved before an impartial court.

Furthermore, according to 03 September 2012 correspondence from the the Supervisory Committee for Judges, the status of the complaints against Judge Opsahl, Judge Arntzen and Justice Schei for denying me my due process right of access to a court to resolve my disputes, are as follows: “Your complaints have been given the case numbers 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). The complete handling time can be close to six months.

If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved.

Legal Standing: Legal Interest: I am an Ecofeminist Political Necessity Activist, who has an interest in ensuring that all political activists from all ideologies, religions, races, cultures who plead to political or military necessity have their ‘necessity’ evidence examined by the court, in terms of an objective and subjective test of such ‘necessity evidence’; the results of such an enquiry being used to make the final determination as to the accused’s guilt or innocence, or mitigation or aggravation of sentencing.

Mr. Breivik’s trial was the most high profile necessity trial on the world stage, for decades. If Mr. Breivik wants to deny himself and other White Nationalists, their right to the court conducting a full impartial enquiry into their necessity evidence, by conducting a subjective and objective test thereof; then that is Mr. Breivik and White Nationalists right to deny themselves an impartial enquiry by the court of their necessity evidence.

The denial by the court, to Mr. Breivik of his right to an objective and subjective test of his necessity evidence, should not be allowed to set a precedent where environmental, immigrant, religious or other necessity activists are also denied their right to an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence, just because one white nationalist chooses to become a martyr, with the enthusiastic support of the Oslo District Court and Norwegian Prosecutory authorities.

As detailed in my Notice of Motion ground [A.1.g] (Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent) it is 09/09/12 NO Supreme Crt: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby: 09.09.2012 Ruling www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

my assertion that the ‘Nodrett/Necessity’ ruling in the Oslo District Court: Breivik judgement as it currently stands discriminates against other future necessity activists, by setting a precedent whereby they can be denied (or can due to ignorance deny themselves, by lacking the knowledge to assert their right thereto); an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence.

My application for review is accordingly to demand the right to an effective remedy, to amend this discriminatory necessity ruling in the Oslo District Court’s Breivik judgement, from affecting other necessity activists.

ECHR: ARTICLE 13: Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

ECHR: ARTICLE 14: Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Request Norwegian Court Officials Provide Consideration to my Review Application, equivalent to the Consideration Given by Military Judge Lind in the Bradley Manning Courtmartial to Letters from Center for Constitutional Rights3: In the case of Bradley Manning’s court martial before a U.S military court, lawyers simply wrote two letters (i.e. not official Notice of Motion applications) to the presiding Chief Judge Lind, objecting to the courts secrecy about particular issues. The Judge proceeded to honourably publicly in court proceedings acknowledge receipt of the letters, file them as public court record exhibits, and treated them as a request to intervene, providing an official court record denial of the request.

Appellee's answer to Appellants Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition4 (Pg2-3) On March 21, appellants, who are not parties to the court martial, sent a letter to the military judge requesting the Court: "make available to the public and the media for inspection and copying all documents and information filed in the Manning case, including the docket sheet, all motions and responses thereto, all rulings and orders, and verbatim transcripts or other recordings of all conferences and hearings before the Court."

At the 39(a) session on April 24, the military judge marked appellants letter as Appellate Exhibit 66, treated it as a request to intervene, and denied the request."

I would imagine if a Military Judge in a Military Court (generally considered far more formalistic than a civilian court) could favourably interpret a letter as an application; then a civilian court could provide a Pro Se applicant who filed an application, with the same honourable transparency? Is this too much to ask of Norwegian jurists and court officials?

Judicial Review vs. Appeal Options: In South Africa the difference between an Application for Appeal and Review is as follows:

3

http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/ccr-et-al-v-usa-and-lind-chief-judge

4

http://ccrjustice.org/files/Govt-response-brief-(CAAF)--US-v-Center-for-Constitutional-Rights-et-al.pdf

09/09/12 NO Supreme Crt: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby: 09.09.2012 Ruling www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

In an appeal the appellant is confined to the four corners of the record, but in review proceedings the aggrieved party may traverse matters not appearing in the record (Coetzer v Henning and Ente, NO 1926 TPD 401 404; S v Mwambazi 1991 (2) SACR 149 (Nm) 151G – 152A). In review, the court is generally not confined to the record of the proceedings, if such exists, since the legality of this may itself be the issue. The court will receive any relevant evidence.

(Administrative Law, Baxter 1984, p 307). The courts power to review is inherent, an appeal is often only available if provided for by statute.

Generally, the Grounds for Judicial Review of a courts administrative decision (judgement) in South Africa are the same as most other countries, as far as I am aware: S 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act provides the grounds upon which proceedings of any inferior court may be brought under review, of relevance here are:-- (a) Absence of Jurisdiction on the part of the court; (c) Gross Irregularity in the Proceedings, & (d) the Admission of Inadmissible or Incompetent Evidence or the Rejection of Admissible or Competent evidence.

Norwegian Justices Confirm Availability of Judicial Review in Norwegian Courts: Former President of Norwegian Supreme Court Justice Carsten Smith: According to Former Justice Carsten Smith, in Judicial Review of Parliamentary Legislation: Norway as a European pioneer5 (Amicus Curiae, Issue 32, November 2000): “.. the history of a legal concept which spread throughout Europe - and the world at large - in the latter half of the twentieth century, but which had already grown roots in Norway a century earlier.... The authority and the duty of the courts to .... represent a safeguard for individuals and minorities whose views have not prevailed in the political arena. There are various terms used for this constitutional law concept, which I shall here refer to as judicial review. .. The constitution makes no explicit mention of judicial review, quite in conformity with European constitutional thinking of that period. This review arose during the following decades from the practice of the Norwegian Supreme Court itself. As a precursor to the review of the legislation the Supreme Court established in its first few years the principle that decisions of the executive branch could be declared null and void by the courts of law. The motivation was simple but forceful: it was stated that there must be some place to which citizens can turn to have the errors of the authorities rectified.”

I imagine that Justice Smith’s reference to Judicial Review as “the authority and the duty of the courts to .... represent a safeguard for individuals and minorities whose views have not prevailed in the political arena” is a reference to the 1938 famous footnote 4 6 to U.S v.

Carolene Products, which articulated a justification for judicial activism in the field of individual rights when he suggested that, unlike challenges to “ordinary commercial transactions,” “there may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution. .. The same was true for legislation which restricts the political process, or is directed at discrete and insular (i.e. vulnerable) minority groups; these situations might call for a “more searching judicial enquiry.” In other words, ordinarily the political system is adequate to defend individual liberties. When it is not, the Courts role must be redefined to allow broader judicial review as a substitute for the political review which these groups were unable effectively to obtain.

Chief Justice of the Norway Supreme Court: Tore Schei:

5

http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/3780/1/1355-1498-1-SM.pdf

6

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Footnote+4

09/09/12 NO Supreme Crt: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby: 09.09.2012 Ruling www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

In a 4 October 2007 letter7 to President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Justice Schei wrote: “... we will give a brief overview of the system of judicial review in Norway. ... First, one of the main features of the system of judicial review in Norway is its concrete character, i.e. that judicial review of the constitutionality of ordinary legislation can only be undertaken in connection with individual cases brought forward by someone with sufficient legal interest in having it resolved. ... a decision in which judicial review is undertaken will set precedent for other cases, i.e. that it must be applied or followed in all other cases regarding the question resolved in the precedent case.”

Supreme Court Justice: Karen Bruzelius: In a letter to the Council of Europe, Venice Commission, Supreme Court Justice Karen Bruzelius, wrote on Judicial Review within a Unified Court System8 that: “In this paper, I will attempt to elucidate how judicial review of administrative acts and legislation works within this unified court system. Those who are unsatisfied with an administrative decision ....., as a rule may bring their complaint to be retried by a higher administrative body. If the person is of the opinion that the administrative decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the applicable law, that the administrative procedure has been at fault or that the administrative body has not acted in good faith - misuse of power - he may then ask the ordinary courts to review the administrative decision. In Norway this is quite common and this type of case always starts in the court of first instance. The court will then review whether the administrative decision is in accordance with the legal rule that applies to the matter…”

Options for Proceeding with the Application for Judicial Review of the Breivik Judgement in terms of Norwegian Legislation: (I) Review Application interpreted in terms of Article 13 ECHR read in conjunction with Protocol 7 ECHR and the EFTA Courts Judicial Review Posten Norge Judgement; effectively interpreted as the Right to Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision or a Court Order.

Put simply as enshrined in the European Court of Human Rights Convention everyone whose rights and freedoms are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority…, and the exercise of the right of review, including the grounds on which it may be exercised, shall be governed by law…

Article 13 ECHR: Right to an effective remedy: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

Article 2 of Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights (“Protocol 7 ECHR”): Right of appeal in criminal matters: (1) Everyone convicted of a criminal offence by a tribunal shall have the right to have his conviction or sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal. The exercise of this right, including the grounds on which it may be exercised, shall be governed by law.

The EFTA court at Luxembourg (interpreting the Agreement on the European Economic Area with regard to the EFTA States party to the Agreement: presently Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway)

7

http://www.confcoconsteu.org/reports/rep-xiv/report_Norway_en.pdf

8

http://www.venice.coe.int/WCCJ/Papers/NOR_Bruzelius_E.pdf

09/09/12 NO Supreme Crt: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby: 09.09.2012 Ruling www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Posten Norge Judgement9 (Case E-15/10), ruled on the application of judicial review in competition law.

It concluded that the criminal provisions providing for guarantee of judicial review are greater than for competition law (83). The established case law of the European Union courts on judicial review of competition decisions is compatible with guarantees laid down by Article 6(1) ECHR, which limits competition law judicial reviews to complex matters (83). In a courts review of a complex matter, it is sufficient for the court to establish whether the evidence put forward for appraisal of the complex matter is factually accurate, reliable, consistent, and contains all the relevant data that must be taken into consideration in appraising the complex situation, and is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it (83). Not only must the court determine whether the evidence relied upon is factually accurate, reliable and consistent, but also whether that evidence contains all the information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation and whether it is capable of substantiaging the conclusions drawn from it (99).

83. … the procedure in competition law cases falls within the criminal sphere for the purpose of the application of the ECHR. However, in its view, the guarantees under Article 6 ECHR do not necessarily apply with their full stringency. It is submitted that the established case-law of the European Union courts on judicial review of competition decisions is compatible with the guarantees laid down by Article 6(1) ECHR. According to this case-law, the review by the Court is limited as regards complex technical or economic appraisals by ESA. In such [review] cases, it is sufficient for the Court to establish whether the evidence put forward is factually accurate, reliable and consistent, contains all the relevant data that must be taken into consideration in appraising a complex situation, and is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it.

ESA submits that its analysis of the competitive situation constitutes a complex economic appraisal and that, accordingly, the decision must be upheld unless the Court finds that it manifestly erred in the appraisal of the applicant’s conduct.

99. This does not, however, mean that the Court must refrain from reviewing ESA’s interpretation of information of an economic nature. Not only must the Court establish, among other things, whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent, but also whether that evidence contains all the information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it (compare Spain v Lenzing, cited above, paragraphs 56 and 57; and, most recently, KME v Commission, cited above, paragraph 121).

(II) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 306: If you insist that my Application for Review should be interpreted in accordance to Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act section 306; I herewith request you to ask the Oslo District Court to provide me with the following Official Oslo District Court documentation from the Pre-Trial Hearings and Trial of Mr. Anders Breivik: 1.

The court transcript of the day upon which Judge Nina Opsahl publicly acknowledged receipt of my Habeus Mentem (Right of Legal Sanity on behalf of Mr. Breivik) application in open court proceedings, including her interpretation of how my application was interpreted by the court, and the subsequent ruling by the court, approving or denying my application and hence confirming my alleged ‘non-party’ status, in response to my application.

2.

The court transcript of the day upon which Judge Nina Opsahl publicly acknowledged receipt of my Amicus Curiae application in open court proceedings, including her interpretation of how my application was interpreted by the court, and the subsequent ruling by the court, approving or denying my application and hence confirming my alleged ‘non-party’ status, in response to my application.

9

http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/15_10_JUDGMENT.pdf

09/09/12 NO Supreme Crt: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby: 09.09.2012 Ruling www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

(III) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 377: Interlocutory Appeal: Section 377: An interlocutory appeal may be brought against a court order or decision by any person who is affected thereby unless it may be the subject of an appeal proper or may serve as a ground of such an appeal by the said person, or it is by reason of its nature or a specific statutory provision unchallengeable.

If so, the Court can refer the matter to the Interlocutory Court in terms of Sections 381 to 388.

(IV) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 389: Reopening a Case: Section 389: A case that has been decided by a legally enforceable judgement may on the petition of one of the parties be reopened for a new trial when the conditions prescribed in sections 390 to 393 are fullfilled.

Section 391. In favour of the person charged reopening of a case may be required... (3) when a new circumstance is revealed or new evidence is procured which seems likely to lead to an acquittal of summary dismissal of the case or to the application of a more lenient penal provision or a substantially more lenient sanction.

Section 392. Even though the conditions prescribed in section 390 or 391 are not fulfilled, the court may order the case to be reopened in favour of the person charged when ... special circumstances make it doubtful whether the judgement is correct, and weighty considerations indicate that the question of the guilt of the person charged should be tried anew.

If so, the court can refer my application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, as an Application for reopening the Breivik Judgement ‘Necessity’ and ‘Guilt’ Rulings in a criminal case.

If Review Application is Interpreted ITO The Dispute Act: Section 29-8 (2)10 Section 29-8 Legal standing (1) The parties to the action may appeal against judicial rulings to have them amended in their favour. Any person who will be affected by the amendment shall be cited as respondent.

(2) A person who is not a party to the action may appeal against rulings that relate to his procedural rights or obligations. Such persons shall be cited as respondents in appeals brought by other persons.

If so, the court can refer my application to a relevant Appeals Court. What the court cannot do, is to deny me due process access to a court. I cannot find any statutory authority that allows a Secretary General to deny me due process access to a court, to make a judicial finding on legal standing (if or where any respondent so demands) in the official proceedings.

Respectfully Submitted

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 5042, George East, 6539 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za

10

The Dispute Act: Mediation & Procedure in Civil Disputes, Act 90 of 17 June 2005 http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-20050617-090-eng.pdf

09/09/12 NO Supreme Crt: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby: 09.09.2012 Ruling www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Annexure “G”

TILSYNSUTV ALGET FOR DOMMERE

Likelydende brev til: Ms Lara Johnstone Amicus Curiae 16 Taaibos Ave Heatherpark George 6529 South Africa imcswan@mweb.co.za og Tingrettsdommer Nina Opsahl Oslo tingrett Pb. 8023 Dep. 0030 OSLO Deres ref:

Var ref:

Dato:

201200622-6/228- TV Juridisk saksbehandler: Espen Eiken

23.10.2012

SAK 71/12: KLAGE PA TINGRETTSDOMMER TINGRETT. UNDERRETNING OM VEDTAK.

NINA OPSAHL VED OSLO

Vedlagt oversendes vedtak i sak 71/12 fattet av Tilsynsutvalget for dommere den 23. oktober 2012.

Tilsynsutvalgets vedtak kan ikke paklages etter forvaltningslovens regler. Partene i saken kan bringe utvalgets vedtak inn for domstolen ved s0ksmal S0ksmalsfristen er to maneder etter at partene ble underrettet om vedtaket. Det vises mermere til domstolloven ยง 239.

Vedtaket er offentlig, jf. offentleglova ยง 3.

Kopi av dette vedtak sendes domstolleder ved Oslo tingrett til orientering.

Med hilsen Sekretariatet for Tilsynsutvalget for dommere

Wenche Venas (Sign.)

Dette brevet er godkjent elektronisk i Domstoladministrasjonens har derfor ingen signatur.

Sekretariatet for Tilsynsutvalget for dommere

Postadresse

Besllksadresse

Domstoladministrasjonen Postboks 5678 Sluppen 7485 Trondheim

Dronningensgt.

2

saksbehandlingssystem

Telefon

Te!efaks

E-post

73 567000

73 56 70 01

tilsynsutvalget@domstol.no

og

TILSYNSUTV ALGET FOR DOMMERE

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere har den 23. oktober 2012 truffet vedtak i Sak nr:

71/12 (arkivnr: 201200622-5)

Saken gjelder:

Klage fra Lara Johnstone pa tingrettsdommer Nina Opsahl ved Oslo tingrett

Utvalgsmedlem:

Bj0m HUbert Senum (vara), etter fullmakt

Offentlighet:

Vedtaket er offentlig, jf. offentleglova ยง 3.

Vedtak:

Det er ikke grunnlag for disiplin~rti1tak mot tingrettsdommer Nina Opsahl. Klagen er apenbart ubegrunnet.

Sekretariatet for TiisynsutvaJget for dommere

Postadresse Domstoladministrasjonen Postboks 5678 Sluppen 7485 Trondheim

Beseksadresse Dronningensgt.2

TeJefon 73567000

Telefaks 73567001

E-post tilsynsutvalget@domstol.no

2

Innledning: Lara Johnstone har den 6. juni 2012 inngitt klage pa tingrettsdommer Nina Opsahl ved Oslo tingrett. Klager er bosatt iSm-Afrika, og klagen er skrevet pa engelsk.

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere har i medhold av domstolloven ยง 238 sjette ledd delegert til utvalgets leder, nestleder og advokatmedlem a avgj0re klager som er apenbart ubegrunnet.

Klagen behandles etter dette av utvalgets vara-advokatmedlem i henhold til nevnte fullmakt.

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere ser slik pa saken: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere kan treffe vedtak om disiplinrertiltak dersom en dommer forsettlig eller uaktsomt overtrer de plikter som stillingen medf0rer, eller for 0vrig opptrer i strid med god dommerskikk, jf. domstolloven ยง 236 fmste ledd.

Klagen er omfangsrik og knytter seg ti122. juli-saken, som ble avviklet ved Oslo tingrett varen og sommer en 2012. Klager har for 0vrig ikke vrert en aktm i rettssaken eller pa annen mate vrert direkte involvert i saken. Det er derfor tvilsomt om klager overhodet har klagerett. Etter utvalgets mening gir klagen f0rst og fremst uttrykk for klagers generelle synspunkter pa det norske rettssystemet og det norske politiske systemet. Det fremgar av klagedokumentene at Johnstone representerer en politisk-kulturell bevegelse (Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist). Det er ingen holdepunkter i klagen for a si at tingrettsdommer Nina Opsahl har opptrMt i strid med god dommerskikk.

Klagen fremstar etter dette som apenbart ubegrunnet.

Det fattes f0lgende vedtak: Det er ikke grunnlag for disiplinrertiltak mot tingrettsdommer Nina Opsahl. Klagen er apenbart ubegrunnet.

Bj0ffi HUbert Senum

TILSYNSUTV ALGET FOR DOMMERE

Likelydende brev til: Ms Lara Johnstone Amicus Curiae 16 Taaibos Ave Heatherpark George 6529 South Africa imcswan@mweb.co.za Tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen Oslo tingrett Postboks 8023 Dep. 0030 OSLO Deres ref:

Var ref:

Data:

201200623-6/228- TU Juridisk saksbehandler: Espen Eiken

23.10.2012

SAK 72/12: KLAGE PA TINGRETTSDOMMER WENCHE ELISABETH ARNTZEN VED OSLO TINGRETT. UNDERRETNING OM VEDT AK. Vedlagt oversendes vedtak i sak 72/12 fattet i Tilsynsutvalgets m0te den 23. oktober 2012.

Tilsynsutvalgets vedtak kan ikke paklages etter forvaltningslovens regler. Partene i saken kan bringe utvalgets vedtak inn for domstolen ved s0ksmal. S0ksmalsfristen er to maneder etter at partene ble underrettet om vedtaket. Det vises n<:ermeretil domstolloven ยง 239.

Vedtaket er offentlig, j f. offentleglova ยง 3.

Kopi av dette vedtak sendes domstolleder ved Oslo tingrett til orientering.

Med hilsen Sekretariatet for Tilsynsutvalget for dommere

Wenche Venas (Sign.)

Dette brevet er godkjent elektronisk i Domstoladministrasjonens har derfor ingen signatur.

Sekretariatet for Tilsynsutvalget for dam mere

Pastadresse Damstaladministrasjonen Postbaks 5678 Sluppen 7485 Trondheim

Besoksadresse Dronningensgt.2

Telefon 73 567000

Telefaks 73567001

saksbehandlingssystem

E-past tilsynsutvalget@domstol.no

og

TILSYNSUTV ALGET FOR DOMMERE

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere har den 23. oktober 2012 truffet vedtak i Sak nr:

72/12 (arkivnr: 201200623-5)

Saken gjelder:

Klage fra Lara Johnstone pa tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen ved Oslo tingrett

Utvalgsmedlem:

Bj0rn HUbert Senum (vara), etter fullmakt

Offentlighet:

Vedtaket er offentlig, j f. offentleglova ยง 3.

Vedtak:

Det er ikke grunnlag for disiplinrertiltak mot tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen. Klagen er apenbart ubegrunnet.

Sekretariatet Tilsynsutvalget for dommere

for

Postadresse Domstoladministrasjonen Postboks 5678 Sluppen 7485 Trondheim

Beseksadresse Dronningensgt.2

Telefon 73567000

Telefaks 73 567001

E-post tilsynsutvalget@domstol.no

._~-------------------------------------------------2

Innledning: Lara Johnstone har den 6. juni 2012 inngitt klage pa tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen ved Oslo tingrett. Klager er bosatt i S0r-Afrika, og klagen er skrevet pa engelsk.

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere har i medhold av domstolloven § 238 sjette ledd delegert til utvalgets leder, nestleder og advokatmedlem a avgj0re klager som er apenbart ubegrunnet.

Klagen behandles etter dette av utvalgets vara-advokatmedlem i henhold til nevnte fullmakt.

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere ser slik pa saken: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere kan treffe vedtak om disiplineertiltak dersom en dommer forsettlig eller uaktsomt overtrer de plikter som stillingen medf0rer, eller for 0vrig opptrer i strid med god dommerskikk, jf. domstolloven § 236 f0fste ledd.

Klagen er omfangsrik og knytter seg til 22. juli-saken, som ble avviklet ved Oslo tingrett varen og sommeren 2012. Klager har for 0vrig ikke veert en akt0r i rettssaken eller pa annen mate veert direkte involvert i saken. Det er derfor tvilsomt om klager overhodet har klagerett. Etter utvalgets mening gir klagen f0rst og fremst uttrykk for klagers generelle synspunkter pa det norske rettssystemet og det norske politiske systemet. Det fremgar av klagedokumentene at Johnstone representerer en politisk-kulturell bevegelse (Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist). Det er ingen holdepunkter i klagen for a si at tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen har opptradt i strid med god dommerskikk.

Klagen fremstar etter dette som apenbart ubegrunnet.

Det fattes f01gende vedtak: Det er ikke grunnlag for disiplineertiltak mot tingrettsdommer Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen.

Klagen er apenbart ubegrunnet.

Bj0rn HUbert Senum

TILSYNSUTV ALGET FOR DOMMERE

Likelydende brev til: Ms Lara Johnstone Amicus Curiae 16 Taaibos Ave Heatherpark George 6529 South Africa og H0yesterettsjustitiarius N orges H0yesterett Pb 8016 Dep. 0030 OSLO

Tore Schei

Deres ref:

Var ref:

Dato:

201200624-7/228- TU Juridisk saksbehandler: Espen Eiken

23.10.2012

SAK 73/12: KLAGE PA H0YESTERETTSJUSTITIARIUS H0YESTERETT. UNDERRETNING OM VEDTAK.

TORE SCHEI VED

Vedlagt oversendes vedtak i sak 73/12 fattet av Tilsynsutvalget for dommere den 23. oktober 2012.

Tilsynsutvalgets vedtak kan ikke paklages etter forvaltningslovens regler. Partene i saken kan bringe utvalgets vedtak inn for domstolen ved s0ksmal. S0ksmalsfristen er to maneder etter at partene ble underrettet om vedtaket. Det vises nrermere til domstolloven ยง 239.

Vedtaket er offentlig, jf. offentleglova ยง 3.

Med hilsen Sekretariatet for Tilsynsutvalget for dommere

Wenche Venas (Sign.)

Dette brevet er godlgent elektronisk i Domstoladministrasjonens har derfor ingen signatur.

Sekretariatet Tilsynsutvalget for dommere

for

Postadresse Domstoladministrasjonen Postboks 5678 Sluppen 7485 Trondheim

Besoksadresse Dronningensgt.

2

Telefon 73 56 70 00

Telefaks 73 56 70 0 I

saksbehandlingssystem

E-post tilsynsutvalget@domstol.no

og

TILSYNSUTV ALGET FOR DOMMERE

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere har den 23. oktober 2012 truffet vedtak i Sak nr:

73/12 (arkivnr: 201200624-6)

Saken gjelder:

Klage fra Lara Johnstone pa h0yesterettsjustitiarius Schei

Utvalgsmedlem:

Bj0m HUbert Senum (vara), etter fullmakt

Offentlighet:

Vedtaket er offentlig, j f. offentleglova ยง 3.

Vedtak:

Det er ikke grunnlag for disiplin~rtiltak mot h0yesterettsjustitiarius Tore Schei. Klagen er apenbart ubegrunnet.

Sekretariatet for Tilsynsutvalget for dommere

Postadresse Domstoladministrasjonen Postboks 5678 Sluppen 7485 Trondheim

Besoksadresse Dronningensgt.2

Telefon 73567000

Telefaks 73567001

Tore

E-post tilsynsutvalget@domstol.no

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

Innledning: Lara Johnstone har den 6. juni 2012 inngitt klage pa h0yesterettsjustitiarius Klager er bosatt i S0r-Afrika, og klagen er skrevet pa engelsk.

Tore Schei.

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere har i medhold av domstolloven § 238 sjette ledd delegert til utvalgets leder, nestleder og advokatmedlem a avgj0re klager som er apenbart ubegrunnet.

Klagen behandles etter dette av utvalgets vara-advokatmedlem i henhold til nevnte fullmakt.

Tilsynsutvalget for dommere ser slik pa saken: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere kan treffe vedtak om disiplimertiltak dersom en dommer forsett1ig eller uaktsomt overtrer de plikter som stillingen medf0rer, eller for 0vrig opptrer i strid med god dommerskikk, jf. domstolloven § 236 f0rste ledd.

Klagen er omfangsrik og knytter seg til 22. juli-saken, som ble avviklet ved Oslo tingrett varen og sommer en 2012. Klager har for 0vrig ikke V(ert en akt0f i rettssaken eller pa annen mate V(ert direkte involvert i saken. Det er derfor tvilsomt om klager overhodet har klagerett. Etter utvalgets mening gir klagen f0fst og fremst uttrykk for klagers generelle synspunkter pa det norske rettssystemet og det norske politiske systemet. Det fremgar av k1agedokumentene at Johnstone representerer en politisk-kulturell bevegelse (Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist). Det er ingen holdepunkter i klagen for a si at h0yesterettsjustitiarius Tore Schei har opptradt i strid med god dommerskikk.

Klagen fremstar etter dette som apenbart ubegrunnet.

Det fattes f0lgende vedtak: Det er ikke grunnlag apenbart ubegrunnet.

for disiplin(ertiltak

mot h0yesterettsjustitiarius

Bj0ffi Hilbert Senum

Tore Schei. Klagen er

Annexure “H”

Office address

Sivilombudsmannen The Parliamentary Ombudsman Norway

Akersgata 8, entrance Tollbugata Postal address P.0.B.3 Sentrum N-OIOI Oslo, Norway

2012/1943

Your ref

postmottak@sivilombudsmannen.no

SIOM

Lara Johnstone P.O.Box 5042 George 6539 Den syd-afrikanske republikk

Gur ref

Telephone +47 22 82 85 00 Fax +47 22 82 85 II

Enquiries to

Date

Torbj0rn Hagerup Nagelhus

15.11.2012

COMPLAINT ON SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY Reference is made to your letter 2. September 2012 with attachments, and previous correspondence, last our letter 11. July 2012.

Your complaint regards Supreme Court's omission to provide your application with a case number. Your have applied for a review of the Breivik Judgement.

The Ombudsman investigates complaints about the public authorities and aims to right individual wrongs and injustices. However, with reference to the Act concerning the Storting's Ombudsman for Public Administration, section 4, first paragraph, litra c), decisions of the courts of law can not be handled by the Ombudsman. Therefore, neither your complaint regarding the omission to provide you with a number nor your application for a review of the Breivik case, will not be examined by the Ombudsman.

The case does not give reason for more from the Ombudsman. Future letters from you regarding the Breivik case will be recorded and read, but you can not expect any answers from here.

On behalf of the Ombudsman

www.sivilombudsmannen.no

Annexure “I”

Sivilombudsmannen The Parliamentary Ombudsman Norway

Office address Akersgata 8, entrance Tollbugata Postal address P.O.B. 3 Sentrum N-0101 Oslo, Norway

2012/1987

postmottak@sivilombudsmannen.no

SIOM

Lara Johnstone PO Box 5042 6539 George East SOUTH AFRICA

Our ref

Telephone +47 22 82 85 00 Fax +47 2282 85 11

Your ref

Enquiries 10

Dale

Edvard Aspelund

27.11.2012

COMPLAINT REGARDING THE APPEALS BOARD FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Reference is made to your letter 11 November 2012 and complaints form 12 November 2012 where your complaint about a decision made 10 September 2012 by the Norwegian Appeals Board for Environmental Infonnation. In the decision the Appeals Boards find that that your «appeals are denied as not justified».

According to the Civil Ombudsman Act section 6 paragraph 4 the Ombudsman «shall decide whether there are sufficient grounds for dealing with a complaint». The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.

Your case at the Ombudsman's office against the Appeals Board for Environmental Infonnation is hereby concluded.

On behalf of the Ombudsman

{1~ 'Annette Dahl Head of Division

www.sivilombudsmannen.no

REGISTERED ..LETTER GEREGISTREERDE BRIEF

Postage paid

A",""",

"'~ Post Office

R

Service fee I Diensgeld .R Insurance I Versekering R

(with an insurance option/met 'n versekeringsops!e) .) ll:.ltlU

[:.&'':

Total/ Totaal

R

'c

I. (I.;.,J ••..•....

UUlI

c <:::Date i-.......

Stamru ~ J

WI

~ The value

of the contents

of this letter is as indicated

and compensation

is not payable

for a letter

received unconditionally.

Compensation is limited to R10D.OO. No compensation is payable without documentary proof. Optional insurance up 10 R2 000.00 is available and applies to domestic registered letters only. van die inhoud van hierdie brief is 500$ aangedui en vergoeding sal nie betaal word vir 'n Geenvergoeding is bnefwat sondervoorbehoud ontvang word nie. Vergoeding IS beperk tot R100.00. sonder dokumentere be'N)'s betaalbaar nie. Opsionete versekering tot R2 000.00 is beskikbaar en is slegs op binnelandse geregisleerde briewe van toepassing.

0860

CUSTOMER

I

111 502 www.sapo.co.za

RJ 002 728 879 COPY

paraat/van aaneembeampte

CON100063

ST

------------------------------------South

African

Post

Office

Limited

GEORGE 14:56:20

10-JAN-2013

TXN

vj6680040 20408

NO.

Teller

80113008

Id TAX

INVOICE

VAT ~4650101142

ALL PRICES

VAT INCLUSIVE

VAT DOES NOT APPLY TO ITEMS MARKED * ------------------------------------.----Receipt

for SA Post

Products -------------4.00 5,00 R180.00 A~IOUNT PRODUCT ---------------------------------------VAT TOTAL @ 14 % SUBTOTAL STP R20 8TH DEF •...

STMP R5 R28TH8THDEFDEF STMP

Office

or Services

------OTY2 1 9

---------.---R189.00 R23.21

--.----

------------------EFTPOS-----------------************3314

DEBIT

10/01/13

14:56:17

TERM

020408

AUTH

TRANS

NO

PURCHASE CASH

2803

SAV

02427281 CODE

465881

R189.00

OUT

TOTAL

AMT

R189.00 ACCEPTED

---------------------------------------.-TRANSACTION

R189.00

TOTAL

===============

1)

EFTPOS

R189,OO ==============

VAT TOTAL

@

14 %

I

i

Z1-\

~~enraTSKrI~

95 YORK

-.1 m!

•• \d;!.~

Affix...Track ::md.Trace, INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED LETTER ShareCall

Dj~ waarde

ml 0 ;01

R23.21 ==============

Datumstempel