​

December 29, 2025 – In a bold step toward global justice, the Alliance for Rights-Oriented Drug Policies (AROD) has submitted a formal communication to the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) under Article 15 of the Rome Statute. This complaint alleges that the systemic enforcement and judicial protection of drug prohibition—particularly cannabis laws—constitutes crimes against humanity. Rooted in decades of evidence from legal challenges, expert reports, and ignored appeals, the submission calls for a preliminary examination into widespread human rights abuses in Norway and Council of Europe (CoE) member states.

​

For over 60 years, drug prohibition has inflicted profound harm without delivering public health benefits. Far from creating a safer world, it has empowered tyrants with tools for social control and empire-building, eroding open societies and the rule of law. As documented in AROD's publications Human Rising: The Prohibitionist Psychosis and Its Constitutional Implications (2020) and To Right a Wrong: A Transpersonal Framework for Constitutional Construction (2016), alongside our 2025 Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, this regime mirrors historical atrocities like witch hunts, Nazi campaigns, and apartheid—manifesting as an ideological delusion that subverts reason and justice.

​

The Scale of Harm

​

In Norway alone, prohibition has led to approximately 1 million punitive sanctions, a 1.75 billion NOK black market, and 300 annual overdose deaths, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups. Globally, AROD estimates 400,000 annual deaths and 5 million wrongful imprisonments. CoE states, serving 700 million citizens, sustain a $300–500 billion illicit market, fueling violence and corruption. Expert reports (e.g., NOU 2002:4, NOU 2019:26) confirm inefficacy, yet judicial systems evade scrutiny, dismissing cases like Mikalsen v. Norway (2012, 2023, 2024) without reasoned analysis—violating ECHR Articles on liberty, fair trials, and non-discrimination.

​

This "prohibitionist psychosis" originates in racism and social control, evolving into a tool for dominance. In the U.S., over 100 constitutional challenges have been mishandled, exposing violations of autonomy and equality. Without principled oversight, moral panic persists despite professional opposition, perpetuating mass-scale death, disease, and stigmatization.

​

Legal Grounds: Crimes Against Humanity

​

Under Article 7 of the Rome Statute, these acts form a widespread and systematic attack on civilians:

​

• Imprisonment/Deprivation of Liberty (7(1)(e)): Millions arbitrarily detained without remedies.

• Persecution (7(1)(h)): Targeting users on political, racial, or cultural grounds.

• Inhumane Acts (7(1)(k)): Inflicting suffering through black-market violence and rule-of-law erosion.

​

Perpetrators acted with knowledge, ignoring 30 years of warnings. National remedies fail due to bias, satisfying complementarity.

​

Precedents and Accountability

​

Drawing on ICC cases like apartheid (Prosecutor v. Al Bashir) and Duterte's drug war (2025 warrant), the complaint parallels prohibition's impunity. Colombian President Gustavo Petro's 2025 advocacy against U.S. "war on drugs" actions reinforces this as systemic abuse.

​

Named for investigation: Norwegian officials (e.g., judges Therese Heggedal, prosecutors Vilde Humlegård) and CoE leaders (e.g., Secretary General Alain Berset, ECtHR judges Vincent De Gaetano and Lorraine Schembri Orland) for complicity through inaction.

​

Request to the ICC

​

AROD urges the Prosecutor to acknowledge, examine, investigate, and preserve evidence. A checklist (Annex C) facilitates review, demanding verification of prohibition's legitimacy.

​

The intent is to restore legal integrity—the named individuals' actions over 20 years have stalled reforms, compromising justice across CoE states. While the ICC focuses on overt atrocities, the "war on drugs" warrants scrutiny as insidious tyranny, evident to experts for decades.

​​

Why This Matters

​

This submission is a pivotal moment for human rights. For 15 years, CoE and ECtHR failures have arrested the rule of law in 46 nations. AROD's efforts, including civil disobedience and unanswered appeals, expose a catastrophe. ICC action could end this crisis, ensuring accountability and reforms.

 

• Download the full complaint here (link-to-pdf)

 

List of Appendices

​

Annex A: Human Rising: The Prohibitionist Psychosis and Its Constitutional Implications (2020). This book provides detailed analysis of the historical roots, psychological underpinnings, and constitutional violations of drug prohibition, serving as foundational evidence for the systemic persecution and rule-of-law erosion alleged in the complaint.

​

Annex B: To Right a Wrong: A Transpersonal Framework for Constitutional Construction (2016). This book outlines a framework for addressing constitutional crises in drug policy, including case studies of mishandled U.S. challenges, supporting claims of judicial failures and violations of autonomy, liberty, and equality in Sections I and II.

​

Annex C: Checklist for ICC review (objective framework drawn from expert sources). This checklist poses key questions on drug prohibition's legitimacy, drawn from expert reports, to facilitate evaluation of whether it constitutes crimes against humanity through systemic oppression and impunity, as referenced in Sections IV and V.

​

Annex D: Police complaint against First State Attorney Torgersen, January 28, 2025). This complaint alleges misuse of authority and obstruction of justice by Torgersen in dismissing prior complaints, evidencing Norwegian officials' complicity in perpetuating arbitrary persecution as detailed in Section IV.

​

Annex E: Police complaint against Frølich, January 18, 2025. This filing accuses Committee leader Peter Frølich of abuse of power for failing to address constitutional violations in drug policy, highlighting political inaction contributing to the systemic assault on rights in Section I.

​

Annex F: Letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions with cannabis and checklist, September 23, 2025. This letter demands principled review of drug laws and includes a checklist, demonstrating ongoing civil disobedience and ignored calls for accountability in Norway's justice system, supporting evidence of judicial failures in Section I.

​

Annex G: Letter to Norwegian Prime Minister's Office, January 22, 2025. This correspondence urges constitutional reforms to end prohibition's harms; despite repeated requests to verify that prohibition fulfills a legitimate purpose, it received no response, illustrating governmental failures to uphold human rights obligations and underscoring the need for ICC intervention in Section IV.

​

Annex H: Police complaint against Correctional Service, November 2, 2025. This complaint targets prison officials for unlawful detention and coercion, providing evidence of arbitrary imprisonment as a core element of the alleged crimes against humanity; the Norwegian police have refused to investigate these alleged crimes, further entrenching impunity as noted in Section II.

​

Annex I: Police complaint against prosecution and courts, November 5, 2025. This document names over 30 judges and prosecutors for offenses like obstruction of justice, supporting claims of judicial complicity and systemic rule-of-law violations in Norway; the Norwegian police have refused to investigate these alleged crimes, exemplifying the institutional failures described in Sections I and IV.

​

Annex J: Letter to ECtHR President, March 18, 2025. This letter complains of ECtHR failures to address prohibition's legitimacy, evidencing institutional inaction and breaches of fair trial rights under the ECHR, as highlighted in Section I.

​

Annex K: Follow-up letter to ECtHR President, May 10, 2025. This follow-up highlights repeated ECtHR dismissals without reasoning, underscoring judicial impunity and the erosion of effective remedies for persecuted groups in Sections II and III.

​

Annex L: Letter to CoE Secretary General, June 5, 2025. This letter details CoE's rule-of-law crisis in cannabis policy, providing context for the broader European failures and demands for intervention in Section I.

​

Annex M: Follow-up letter to CoE Secretary General, July 1, 2025. This follow-up critiques inadequate responses and systemic failures, reinforcing evidence of CoE complicity through inaction in Section IV.

​

Annex N: Follow-up letter to CoE Secretary General, September 18, 2025. This escalation urges urgent action on ECtHR failures, documenting ongoing harm and violations across CoE states in Sections I and II.

​

Annex O: Final follow-up letter to CoE Secretary General, November 26, 2025. This final demand threatens ICC inclusion for CoE leaders, highlighting 15 years of ignored appeals and democratic erosion in Section IV.

​

Annex P: Final follow-up letter to Commissioner for Human Rights, December 2, 2025. This is the final of four letters to the Commissioner for Human Rights, addressing failure to protect the rule of law; it escalates demands for intervention on human rights crises, evidencing CoE's failure to protect vulnerable populations in Section I.

​

Annex Q: Final follow-up letter to Director General of Human Rights and Rule of Law, November 28, 2025. This is the final of four letters to the Director General of Human Rights and Rule of Law, addressing failure to protect the rule of law; this escalation calls for scrutiny of drug war outcomes as tyranny, supporting the complaint's framing of prohibition as crimes against humanity in Section III.

​

Annex R: Final follow-up letter to Committee of Ministers, December 2, 2025. This is the final of four letters to the Committee of Ministers, addressing failure to protect the rule of law; this letter demands action on systemic violations, illustrating CoE leadership's role in enabling impunity in Section IV.

​

Annex S: Final follow-up letter to PACE President, December 2, 2025. This is the final of four letters to the PACE President, addressing failure to protect the rule of law; this escalation threatens ICC action for PACE inaction, providing evidence of parliamentary failures in addressing rule-of-law breaches in Section IV.