27 Selected topics from 2015 On 27 February, the Parliamentary Ombudsman submitted a consultation response to the proposal. In the response, the Ombudsman pointed out a number of factors that should be looked at in more detail, including how this arrangement addresses Norwegian human rights commitments, language and communication between employees and inmates, and access to health care services.3 The Ombudsman also deemed the short consultation deadline to be unfortunate. committed in the prison and that the Dutch authorities are responsible for investigating and prosecuting criminal offences and deaths in the prison. In line with Norway’s commitments? Following the consultation, the Ministry submitted a proposition to the Storting4 for it to give its consent to the proposed amendments to the Execution of Sentences Act and to enter into the agreement with the Netherlands on renting places in Norgerhaven prison for three years from 1 September 2015. The Parliamentary Ombudsman, represented by the NPM, attended the Standing Committee on Justice’s open hearing on 28 April and pointed out, among other things, that no reference is made in the proposition to how Norway aims to honour its commitments under the UN Convention against Torture in relation to inmates serving their sentences in the Netherlands. After the hearing, the Parliamentary Ombudsman outlined this matter in more detail in a letter to the committee.5 Under the agreement, the Norwegian authorities have no authority to investigate criminal offences committed in Norgerhaven prison. The Norwegian authorities will thereby not be able to implement measures to investigate or prosecute matters that could fall under the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment of the inmates. This will apply both to incidents caused by Dutch employees in the prison and by the employees’ passivity in the event of violence committed by other inmates. The UN’s Committee against Torture (CAT) has stated that it is the state’s responsibility to prevent, prohibit and punish torture and ill-treatment in any territory under its jurisdiction6. The Ombudsman therefore found grounds to question whether this type of limitation on the Norwegian authorities’ capacity is in line with Norway’s commitments under the UN Convention against Torture. The proposition states that inmates serving sentences in another state will be under Norwegian jurisdiction. Articles 14 and 17 of Norway’s agreement with the Netherlands of 2 March 2015, states however that Dutch criminal law will apply to criminal offences The state’s responsibility outside its own borders The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan E. Méndez presented a report in October 2015, in which he reminded the states about their responsibility and commitments under the UN Convention against " It is the state’s responsibility to prevent, prohibit and punish torture and ill-treatment ’in any territory under its jurisdiction " 3 The Parliamentary Ombudsman, consultation submission on amendments to the Execution of Sentences Act (execution of sentences in another state etc.), 27 February 2015. 4 Prop. 92 LS (2014-2015) Endringer i straffegjennomføringsloven (straffegjennomføring i annen stat), samtykke til inngåelse av avtale med Nederland av 2. mars 2015 om bruken av fengsel i Nederland og endringer i statsbudsjettet 2015 (Amendments to the Execution of Sentences Act (execution of sentences in another state), consent to enter into an agreement with the Netherlands of 2 March 2015 on the use of a prison in the Netherlands and amendments to the state budget 2015 - in Norwegian only). 5 The Parliamentary Ombudsman, Letter to the Standing Committee on Justice, 6 May 2015, Comment from the Parliamentary Ombudsman after the hearing of the Standing Committee on Justice, 28 April 2015. 6 The UN’s Committee against Torture, General Comment no 2 (General Comment 24 January 2008, CAT/C/GC/2).