The Alliance for Rights-Oriented Drug Policies
Your Rights Watch
Audio files from the District Court
On June 1, the AROD's civil disobedience outside the Main police station went to court. The Judge was informed in advance of the need for en effective remedy, but the case got a Magistrate who concealed human rights violations. Both the prosecutor and the judge were sufficiently informed to know better, but the merits of the law were not explored. Instead, public panic and punishment on dubious premises were continued by the District Court, and here are the audio files.
Reading of the Indictment
​
The prosecutor does not want the Court to provide an effective remedy. The defense explains that it is the duty of the court to look at the relationship between drug prohibition and the Norwegian constitution.
The Defendant Speaks
​
The defendant explains the principles of human rights and their relevance to drug policy. The Judge interrupts several times to steer the proceedings away from constitutional territory. As she said: “We must separate between jurisprudence and assessing incompatibility with the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.”
​
The defense attorney explains about the rule of law, the right to an effective remedy, and the duty of the Magistrate to end the regime of arbitrary detention.
​
The defendant holds the Judge and the prosecutor to account for failing the rule of law and covering up State crimes.
The Prosecution's sentencing case
​
The Police attorney does not care about the firmament of law. The prosecution asks for 15 days suspended sentence and a fine of 5000 Norwegian kroner.
The Defense’s sentencing case
The Defense attorney presents the constitutional argument for abolishing Sections 231 and 232 of the Norwegian Penal Code.
The Defendant's last words
​
The defendant speaks to the hypocrisy of the Norwegian Justice system. When the Norwegian Ship Owners’ economic interests were in danger, the court would control the political process and secure rights. Nevertheless, when drug users ask the court to look at the rights of offenders to be free from arbitrary persecution and detention, the court refuses to investigate.