COURT: When Jehovah’s Witnesses meet the state in the appeal case regarding state subsidies, they want two international experts to be called as expert witnesses. Both the state and the Court of Appeal say no. – Worrying, says the religious community.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have filed a lawsuit after the authorities decided to deprive them of their registration as a religious community and thus also the state subsidy that comes with it. Norwegian authorities believe they were able to do this because they consider Jehovah’s Witnesses’ exclusion practices to be in conflict with the Religious Communities Act. Oslo District Court. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ lawyer, Anders Ryssdal.
The state believes the Court of Appeal’s ruling is correct, says government attorney Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen, who represents the state.
Last year, Jehovah’s Witnesses lost the trial regarding state subsidies and registration against the state, but appealed the case to the Court of Appeal. The case will therefore be retried at the beginning of February. In this regard, the religious community has called for two international experts to be summoned as expert witnesses. They want professors Jean Zermatten and Roberta Ruggiero to explain the law in the appeal case.
During the trial, Jehovah’s Witnesses also want to have a report prepared by the two professors presented.
But the opposing party, the state, wants neither of these things – and the religious community is being denied by the Borgarting Court of Appeal. This is clear from a ruling from the Court of Appeal before Christmas.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have filed a lawsuit after the authorities decided to deprive them of their registration as a religious community and thus also the state subsidy that comes with it. Norwegian authorities believe they have been able to do this because they consider the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ exclusion practice to be in violation of the Religious Communities Act.
DISAGREE: Government Attorney Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen represents the state.. They do not want the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ proposed expert witnesses to be called to the upcoming appeal case. (Erlend Berge)
“Hardly accessible material”
It is the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ controversial exclusion practice that is the reason why the religious community has been denied state subsidies and registration as a religious community. According to the state, the practice violates both the members’ freedom of association, but also the rights of children as defined in the Religious Communities Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Now that the case is to be retried, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it is necessary to call in international expertise on, among other things, the Convention on the Rights of the Child. They believe that the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its associated sources are “hardly accessible material, even for very competent Norwegian lawyers,” they have explained to the Court of Appeal.
Both Jean Zermatten and Roberta Ruggiero believe they are relevant as expert witnesses with their “very extensive knowledge and long experience related to children’s rights”.
Zermatten is a former member and president of the UN Children’s Committee, while Ruggiero is director of the Children’s Rights Academy at the University of Geneva, Switzerland.
WORLDWIDE ORGANIZATION: According to their own statistics, Jehovah’s Witnesses were active in 239 countries in 2022 and had around 8.5 million members (active preachers) distributed across 117,960 congregations.
“Readily available”
An expert is a person who has special professional knowledge on a subject and who can explain this in court. However, this requires permission from the court, according to the Civil Procedure Act. The conditions for granting permission are also strict, explains Government Attorney Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen.
The reason is that it is the lawyers who are supposed to present the law in court cases. It is therefore very rare for the court to allow this to be done by witnesses instead, she says.
This is one of the reasons why the state does not want the two professors to be used in the upcoming appeal case.
The state believes that it is fundamentally important to limit explanations about law in order to prevent the legal basis from slipping, says Gjone.
The state also believes that the application of the law in the case can be elucidated “fully properly” without providing evidence about the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Court of Appeal also believes this.
“Norwegian and foreign legal literature on the Convention on the Rights of the Child is relatively extensive and easily accessible,” they refer to in their ruling. Provisions in the Convention on the Rights of the Child have also been tested by Norwegian courts in many cases, they write.
“In the view of the Court of Appeal, the application of the law in the case can therefore be elucidated fully properly without the explanation from Professor Zermatten,” the ruling states. The same applies to the testimony from Ruggiero. The refusal is justified based on Section 11-3 of the Dispute Act.
Independence may be questioned
Jehovah’s Witnesses also want a report prepared by Professor Zermatten, with contributions fromag from Professor Ruggiero, will be presented during the appeal. But the state does not want this either, and has, among other things, pointed out that the report was prepared in connection with the case on behalf of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The rule that requires all parties in the case to consent to such reports being presented is important in the state’s view. The rule is intended to prevent reports from being presented where the independence of the author can be questioned, says Gjone.
The state receives support in these points from the Court of Appeal.
Jørgen Pedersen, spokesman for Jehovah’s Witnesses STATEMENT: – It is remarkable and worrying from a human rights perspective that the state does not show interest in what renowned experts on children’s rights can contribute to the current case, says Jørgen Pedersen, spokesperson for the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ information department in Scandinavia. (Morten Marius Larsen)
Worrying
Vårt Land mentioned the current report last fall when Jehovah’s Witnesses asked the Ministry of Children and Family to reconsider the decisions to deny state subsidies and registration due to changes in the exclusion practice.
On that occasion, they sent over the current report from the two professors.
In their expert opinion to the Ministry of Children and Family, they conclude that the religious practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses are in accordance with and protected by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, says Jørgen Pedersen about the report. He is a spokesperson for the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ information department in Scandinavia.
What do you think of the Court of Appeal’s ruling?
We recognize the Court of Appeal’s ruling and recognize that acceptance of expert statements and expert witnesses requires consent from both parties to the case. However, it is remarkable and worrying from a human rights perspective that the state does not show interest in what recognized experts on children’s rights can contribute to the current case, says Jørgensen.