consideration by the Committee of the initial report of Norway, had resulted in only one charge; the investigation of more than 100 cases of alleged false accusations had resulted in 15 charges and 11 convictions, none of which had been appealed. No further information had been received concerning police brutality in Bergen. 65. Members of the Committee commended the Norwegian Government on the quality of its report, which had been submitted with punctuality and could serve as a model for the reports to be submitted by other States. They also noted with satisfaction Norway’s support for the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and the principle of preventive country visits, as contained in the draft optional protocol to the Convention which was under elaboration in a working group of the Commission on Human Rights. 66. Generally, members of the Committee felt that some clarification was necessary with regard to the incorporation of the Convention in domestic law and the implementation in practice of its provisions. They noted that Norway had a dualistic relationship between domestic law and international law, but it was not clear which legal provision took precedence and whether the Convention had actually been incorporated into domestic legislation. From the information provided, it appeared that the Convention was not a formal part of domestic law but that Norwegian courts were able to refer to international treaties in applying domestic law. Members of the Committee observed, in this connection, that the fact that Norwegian legislation did not contain a definition of torture automatically gave rise to problems with regard to the implementation of the provisions of the Convention. They therefore expressed the hope that the Norwegian authorities would reconsider their position that the term "torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" did not need to be incorporated into the country’s legislation. In this regard, they wished to know what progress had been made by the Norwegian expert committee, which had been mentioned during the consideration of Norway’s initial report, whose mandate was to make proposals on the way in which the major international human rights instruments could be incorporated into Norwegian legislation. 67. With regard to article 2 of the Convention, further information was requested on the authority deciding in Norway about deprivation of liberty and on the lawful period during which a person might be held in custody without being brought before a court. 68. With reference to article 3 of the Convention, members of the Committee requested information on how the 1988 Immigration Act actually worked and asked, in particular, whether foreigners, especially refugees, could be denied entry to Norway by the border police and turned back and what recourse procedure was available to them. Clarification was also sought about the indication in the report that extradition could also take place outside bilateral or multilateral agreements. 69. In connection with article 4 of the Convention, it was recalled that each State party should ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law and clarification was requested on the extent to which Norway was complying with that requirement and how it dealt with the question of mental torture. 70. Referring to article 5 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to have some clarification on whether Norway had a system of universal jurisdiction for persons who committed torture and whether it allowed convicted persons, subject to certain conditions, to serve their sentence in their home countries, as provided for by the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. -14-