78. In connection with article 2 of the Convention, the representative indicated that, according to section 183 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a detained person must be brought before a judge on the day following his arrest. 79. Referring to article 3 of the Convention, the representative stated that the case of any foreigner requesting asylum at the border or invoking certain rules of humanitarian protection was referred to the Director of the Immigration Services; in any event, an asylum-seeker would not be turned back at the border. A residence permit could also be issued for humanitarian reasons. In addition, Norway had a list of countries to which foreign nationals must not be sent back. Extradition could be granted to countries with which Norway had not concluded treaties but, in such cases, it was subject to specific requirements and a final decision by the Minister for Justice. 80. With regard to article 4 of the Convention, the representative pointed out that Norwegian law made no distinction between moral and physical harm. 81. Turning to article 5 of the Convention, the representative stated that, in general, Norway implemented the principle of universal jurisdiction which was applicable to acts of torture committed abroad by Norwegian nationals, as well as to acts committed abroad by foreigners. If a person who had committed an act of torture was in danger of ill-treatment or the death penalty if he was extradited, he would be tried in Norway. The Minister for Justice had recommended that the Parliament should ratify the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. 82. In connection with article 10 of the Convention, the representative mentioned that the Norwegian authorities had established a fruitful dialogue with the Norwegian Medical Association, which was particularly interested in medical ethics and torture. No special instruction on torture was provided in law faculties but, in human rights courses, considerable attention was paid to United Nations conventions. 83. Referring to article 12 of the Convention, the representative explained that the investigative body set up in connection with the alleged police brutality in the city of Bergen was responsible for investigating acts committed by members of the police or prosecution bodies in the exercise of their functions. It conducted the investigation, while the public prosecutor was responsible for bringing charges. It was presided over by a judge and has been set up to ensure that abuses by the police were investigated impartially and independently of the various police forces. Once the investigation had been completed, justice followed its normal course. He also stated that there were no statistics on foreigners who might have been subjected to police brutality or on the conduct of the police in urban as opposed to rural areas and that sufficient evidence against 11 of the 15 persons charged with false accusations against the police in Bergen had been established by the jury. The views of Amnesty International in this matter had been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 84. With regard to article 14 of the Convention, the representative explained in detail the compensation procedures available in Norway, which consisted of various mechanisms for both economic and non-economic losses. Claims for compensation could be linked with a criminal action and the amount of compensation was determined by the courts. The system for compensation by the State came into play when the offender was insolvent. The State was held responsible for unlawful injury caused by its agents and, in case of acts of torture committed by public officials, the amount of compensation would not be limited to NKr 150,000. -16-