top of page


To take back constitutional rights, AROD brought cannabis and psilocybin mushrooms to the main police station in Oslo on 11 september, 2021. With this action, we presented an opportunity to do away with uncertainty around the use of the police power, but the case was mistreated by the justice system. Here is video and case correspondence.


document for court image.jpg

The case is moving forward in the Norwegian system of justice, and this document to the court frames the human rights argument as well as the legal proceedings.

Several ministers are summoned to testify, and AROD is looking forward to an orderly process where constitutional considerations are put first.

The police attorney does not wish to allow evidence that would support allegations of human rights violations in AROD's civil disobedience case to be presented in court. Nevertheless, It is the court's task to present an effective remedy, and this document elaborates on the importance of the evidence.

cover image for Request for maintenance of the list of evidence.jpg


The Norwegian court has decided that the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health, and other key witnesses in charge of drug policy shall not be compelled to testify before the court.

Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the state to justify punishment, and key questions remain to be answered.

AROD will continue to hold authority to account, and here are our questions:


The case was processed by the District Court on 1. June 2022. Arguing that the business of the court was to look at the law and not at the relationship to human rights, the Judge refused to let the defense present any witnesses, documentation, or documentary evidence in support of our claim that there is a connection between moral panic, human rights violations and the arbitrary persecution of the past.


This decision has been sent to the Court of Appeals. The defence holds that the right to fair trial and effective remedy has been breached, that it takes a human rights analysis to decide whether punishment is just, and that the Court of Appeals must reject the decision of the District Court.

On 26. October 2022, the Court of Appeals decided that the appeal was without merit, and that no further action should be taken by the court.

This decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court. The defense upholds that the right to a fair trial and effective remedy dictates that the evidence for human rights violations is accepted by the court, that a human rights analysis must be done, and that this is the only way to preserve the rule of law.


On 20. December 2022, the Norwegian Supreme Court failed to provide an effective remedy. The Judges accepted the reasoning of the appeals court, which held that it does not matter if the drug law violates human rights, and the case will be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.

The prosecution, in claiming that "it is not the proper area of the court to consider whether the Nowegian drug policy is wise or fair as seen from a moral perspective", has rejected the weight of 200 years of legal development in the area of Norwegian human rights protection. AROD therefore has complained to the Director of the Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs:



AROD has made a poster where the prosecutor in ARODs civil disobedience is being depicted as a traitor to the constitution. This campaign has split the drug reform community, and AROD has reported its own campaign to the police. As we do not condone hate-speech, we want to clarify the posistion for the rule of law and the use of language, and this is another opportunity for the Norwegian justice system to deliver on neglected promises:

As a result of this campaign, Sturla Henstiksbø, the prosecutor in ARODs civil disobedience, filed a complaint to the police. He charged that ARODs leader was showing ruthless behaviour and obstructing justice. However, the police and the the prosecution sided with AROD, and it is now clear that prosecutors must bear being called "quislings" if they fail to respect the right to judicial review:



More case documents

(Click Orange for English) 

bottom of page