A rich accurate and systematically numbered documentation is of capital importance. 

Translations of the documents involve a considerable cost for those who do not have French or English nationalities, but you can apply for support from the Commission. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

back 

1) Name: Thorgeirson 2) First name: Thorgeir 3) Nationality: Icelandic  4) Profession: author 5) Date and place of birth:  30.04.1933 at Hafnarfjördur 6) Resident: Bókhlödustígur 6 B  -  101 Reykjavík  -  Iceland   7) Tel No:  [55]1 66 98 

8) - 12) No answers.

13) The high contracting party: Iceland 14) Statement of the facts: See enclosed: " A Short Report on Case nr. 272/1986 at the Supreme Court of Iceland: The Public prosecutor v/Thorgeir Thorgeirson" and documents in ref. to art. 6 number 1 and number 2 as well as art. 10 of Section 1. Eventually other art. 15) Statement of alleged violations of the convention and of relevant argument: See under II, 14. and enclosed documents about the violations. 16) Final decision: 20.10.1987. Judgment of the Supreme court of Iceland. 17) Other decisions: See: "A Short Report..." which is enclosed. 18) Is any other appeal or remedy available which you have not used? No. 19) Statement on the object of the application: This is the first and - I hope - the last time that I have to be in the situation of an accused person. This has been quite an experience. From the beginning of this overwhelming period I have tried to develope an objective standpoint, which at first was practically impossible, later it was easier. For some time. But the shock first came when I realized that mine was not a case of individual persecution but the com-mon experience af all those  ( ome 3000 persons a year) who happen to be summoned to meet with the people of the Criminal court of Reykjavík. The others had simply kept  silent. Many a thing to my disliking I have had to observe during the last four and a half year. What remains is a feeling of something going essentially wrong in our Judicial system. But I want to be sure and therefore I have decided to send the documentation for your objective, impartial evaluation. Your Court is widely respected and could have a very positive impact upon the situation here, which I see as a potential catastrophe if nothing will be done in the near future. Local possibilities are limited as usually in such cases. That is the reason for my application. 20) Statement concerning other international proceedings: None.

21) Enclosed documents:

a) A Short Report on the case nr. 272/1986 ( a copy)

b) My article "Let us consider now!" that started the whole case. (in Icelandic together with an English translation)

c) My article "Strike while the fly is sitting on my nose!"  (in Icelandic together with an English translation)

d) The Public Prosecutor Thordur Björnsson's letter to the Head of State Criminal Investigation Police, Hallvardur Einvardsson, dated May 21st 1984. ( Icel. copy and Engl. translation)

e) The SCIP report on their interrogation with my statements. (Icel. copy and Engl. translation )

f) The Icelandic Copyright act (art. 4) in English translation.

g) A letter of January 9th 1984 from the Minister of Justice. ( Icel. copy and Engl. translation )

h) Bill of Indictment, dated August 13th 1985.  Issued  by Public prosecutor Thordur Björnsson. (Icel. copy and Engl. transl.)

i) The Criminal Court judgment of June 16th 1986. ( Icel. copy and Engl. translation )

j) The confirmation of Sigurmar K. Albertssons appointment to advocate my appellate case, dated April 10th 1987. (Icel. copy and Engl. translation)

k) My letter of May 14th 1987 to all Supreme Court judges regarding my right according to the law on the Supreme court and according to the Convention art. 6 and art 10 of Sec. I. ( Icel. copy and Engl. translation )

l) My letter of Sept.8 to "advocate" Sigurmar K. Albertsson with my objections against his advocating the case. ( Icel. copy and Engl. translation )

m) My letter of 8/9 1987 to Public prosecutor Hallvardur Einvardsson on the same subject. (Icel. copy and Engl. trl.)

n) A transcript from the Judgment book of the Supreme court: hearing of September 22nd 1987 and  Judgment of October 20th 1987 together with Gaukur Jörundsson's dissenting opinion. (Icel. copy and Engl. translation)

o) My letter of 20/10 1987 to the Secretary of the Supreme court inquiring about documentation and facts of the appointment of the "advocate". ( icel. copy and engl. translation )

p) A letter 27/10 from the Secretary of the Supreme Court with information about the destiny of my letter to the Public prosecutor as well as the appointment of SKA. (Icl.copy & Engl.trl.) Practically each and every point mentioned in the " Short Report" is well documented ( in Icelandic). I neither had time nor means to have everything translated now. Could more documents be introduced at a later stage?

April 8th  1988

EX QUESTIONAIRE:

Because Icelandic names are difficult for persons of other nationalities I set up a list of the names and their roles in the case.

We distinguish between three different periodes of the case:

A: from December 1983 to August 1985.

B: August 1985 to August 1986.

C: the year 1987.

                                      During A                                 During B                                During C

Tórdur Björnsson:      issued the prosecution                 partly absent                                 retired

                                                                                                  partly prosecuting

Pétur Gudgeirsson:     Debuty at Public prosecut-          Prosecuting

                                            or's  Investigation                           Judge.

                                                    Office

Hallvardur Einvardsson:  Head of SCIP during                                        Public prosecutor

                                              interrogations                                                   during Supr.Court

    With regards:

________________________________

1983: The 27th of December the solicitor of the Association of Policemen in Reykjavík asked for an Official Investigation of those texts. 

1984: The 21st of May Public Prosecutor Thordur Björnsson sent the case to The State Criminal Investigation Police for examination. The Head of SCIP at that time was Hallvardur Einvardsson who later had the role of Public Prosecutor for the same case at the Supreme Court. 

1984: The 18th of June I was interrogated at the SCIP Headquarters where I gave answers to all questions asked by two Policemen, protesting though against their methods of examination: 

1): Isolated words and parts of sentences were being taken out of context and misinterpreted - to my disadvantage. 

2):The interrogators were Policemen and thus not in the position to conduct an impartial examination, the subject matter being my texts on the professional errors of their companions - if not their own errors.

1985: The 17th of September Judge Pétur Gudgeirsson ( formerly employed by Public Prosecutor Thordur Björnsson where PG was working during  the period this case had  been treated by that Office ) conducted the first session of The Criminal Court Trials. The session was not recorded on tape ( although this is obligatory according to Law nr. 74/1974: on Criminal Procedure ). Nor was any of the following sessions, which all were conducted by Judge Gudgeirsson. The Public Prosecutor abstained from Court which immediately caused a lot of confusion. Judge Gudgeirsson claimed to be representing the Prosecution as well, which seems to be the practice at The Criminal Court of Reykjavík. In the situation he was unwilling to accept my note on the Prosecutor's Bill of Indictment being unlawful, thus my bearings on this matter couldn't reach the Protocol of The CC until I had published them in a letter to the Judge in a daily and formally claimed the article to be numbered among the Documents of the case. 

1985: The 24th of September my advocate, Tómas Gunnarsson, claimed the abdication and replacement of Judge Pétur Gudgeirsson on the basis that a Judge representing Prosecution in Court instantly becomes adverse to the cause of the defendant and thus involved in the case he is to judge. Adv. Gunnarsson also pointed out that our Constitution does not allow such endorsement of Prosecution. 

1985: The 25th of September CC-Judge Pétur Gudgeirsson pronounced the following Judicial Decision of his: "Defendant's Thorgeir Thorgeirsson's claim that the Judge of this case be replaced by another person is overruled". 

1985: The 25th of September advocate Gunnarsson (on my behalf) by telegram appealed Judge Gudgeirsson's Decision (of the same date) to The Supreme Court of Iceland. 

1985: The 26th of September The Public Prosecutor's obstruction (motivated by Art. 171 of the Law nr. 74/1974) of my appeal was conveyed in a letter to CC-Judge Gudgeirsson. 

1985: The 30th of September adv. Gunnarsson published an open letter to The Minister of Justice, Jón Helgason, in a daily of Reykjavík introducing to Mr. Helgason the situation of my case, objecting to many violations of good rules and prevailing Law that the Police, the Public Prosecutor and the Criminal Court had been executing. 

1985: The 9th of October Public Prosecutor Björnsson suddenly was present in Court ordering his former employee, the Honorable Judge Gudgeirsson, around. Adv. Gunnarsson made his announcement that Art. 171 of the Law nr. 74/1974, used as motivation for the Prosecutor's obstruction formerly mentioned, was contrary to Art. 1 and Art. 60 of our Consti- tution. He asked for a suspension of the Court until the Ministry had responded to his letter of sept. 30th and decided weather an appeal to the Supreme Court would be allowed. 

1985: The 18th of October The Ministry of Justice addressed a letter to adv. Gunnarsson supporting the Public Prose- cutor's obstruction of my appeal. "The Ministry has considered the matter and finds no reason to support your plea" Signed by Thorsteinn Geirsson and Thorsteinn A. Jónsson. 

1985: The 23rd of October adv. Gunnarsson published an open letter to all Members of Parliament (Alþingi) explaining the situation of my case, reminding of the Parliamentarian's duty to survey the righteous conduct of Court. 

1985: The 25th of October I published the formerly mentioned letter to the Judge in a daily of Reykjavík where I declared the Prosecutor's Bill of Indictment unlawful and put forward some 
explanations of my accused texts that CC-Judge Gudgeirsson had been unwilling to notice in Court. 

1985: The 25th of October the case was tried in presence of Public Prosecutor Björnsson who accepted that Gunnarsson's letter to the Parliamentarians and my letter to the Judge were numbered among Documents of the case. Adv. Gunnarsson once again insisted on the appeal to the SC being allowed to proceed. I was questioned about things completely irrelevant to my case and gave answers to all the questions asked. 

1985: The 11th of November adv. Gunnarsson, in a letter to CC-Judge Gudgeirsson, asked for a " copy of any conclusion of the concerned Association of Policemen of Reykjavík insisting on the official investigation of Thorgeirsons's articles ". 

1985: The 15th of November Einar Bjarnason, the Chairman of the Association of Policemen of Reykjavík testfied before the Court in presence of the Public Prosecutor that there " probably was existing some document " concerning the Association's wish to start this investigation, " at least " he could " remember the case being discussed ". 

1986: The 17th of January CC-Judge Gudgeirsson received a negative answer from the Secretary of the Association of Policemen who didn't wish to forward any such conclusion of  theirs. 

1986: The 31st of January adv. Gunnarsson in Court stressed the fact that the Association of Policemen had failed to forward any evidence of their wish to start this case which left the Court without any legal body having asked for this "  investigation ". Thus the case should be dismissed. 

1986: The 28th of April the Public Prosecutor announced in Court that he was not going to deliver any verbal or written motivations of his prosecution in the case, nor was he going to be present at my verbal vindication, which of course left the Defense in a difficult position, having no concrete argumentation to oppose. 

1986: The 16th of June CC-Judge Pétur Gudgeirsson sentenced me to 8 days of prison and payment of all costs. The strange thing about his motivation of this Sentence is that it rather sounds like a Prosecution text - which only is natural considering the fact that by abstaining from this last stage of the Trials Public Prosecutor Björnsson factually handed the power of Prosecution again to the Judge. Thus Mr. Gudgeirsson brings into the motivation of his sentence, composed of course after the delivery of my defense, numerous citations to judge made law and other "arguments" that neither had been mentioned to me nor to my advocate during the Trials. This is insufficient jurisprudence. If any. Another strange part of the CC-sentence was a very strict note my advocate, Tómas Gunnarsson, got for misconduct and offense of the Court and the Prosecutor during trials. Astonished by this highly unfair and professionally inconvenient note he contacted the Court asking for an explanation, and was then informed that his offense consisted in asking both the Judge and the Public Prose- cutor to pass a test to confirm if they really were literate. But those had been  my  words towards the end of the CC-trials as I finally got tired of the limited understanding of my texts the two Honorable Gentlemen under the circumstances could allow themselves. 

1986: The 16th of June I appealed the case to The Supreme Court of Iceland and this time the appeal was granted by Public Prosecutor Björnsson. Due to the above mentioned note adv. Gunnarsson had got, he felt obliged to defend himself in the case which made him too involved to represent my interests. In this situation I decided to take over the Defense myself ( in accordance with Art. 6, 3 c of Section I of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Co E ) as well as a similar Art. ( 49 ) in prevailing local Law on The Supreme Court of Iceland nr.75/1973 ). 

1987: The 4th of March I advertised this my decision in a letter to Magnus Thoroddsen, the President of The Supreme Court of  Iceland, referring to many a precedent of others defending their own cases at the SC. In the same letter I listed up 12 different points on violation of good rule and prevailing Law being executed by the Public Prosecutor, the Police and the CC-Judge during the "investigation", many of which I already mentioned in this report. 

1987: The 9th of March the Honorable President of the SC informed me that my wish to defend my own case had not been granted. 

1987: The 11th of March I firmly protested in a registered letters to all the members of The Supreme Court of Iceland and had my Correspondence with the SC-President officially published in a daily of Reykjavík under the title  ANALFABETISMUS REGALIS (Royal Analfabetism). 

1987: The 6th of May adv. Sigurmar K. Albertson came to my home and informed me, verbally,  that the 10th of april 1987 the President of The Supreme Court, Magnús Thoroddsen, had appointed him to defend my case at The Supreme Court. I immediately protested against this unlawful procedure and expressed my unwillingness to rely on SKA's assistance for a minute of my life. I also pointed out that SKA's conduct was more than questionable: hiding for over three weeks the fact that he secretly had taken over my interests. 

1987: The 7th of May I protested again in registered letters to all Judges of the SC referring to my constitutional rights and other legal rights already mentioned in this document. A copy was sent to the Ministry of Justice. Without result. 

1987: The 22nd of September Case 272/1986 was before the Supreme Court (see encl. documents) with Sigurmar K. Albertsson as my " advocate ". 

1987: The 22nd of September I handed over a letter to the new Public Prosecutor, Hallvardur Einvardsson (former Head of the SCIP during the period they had "examined" the same case). This letter contained my plea for an Official Investigation of the appointment of Sigurmar K. Albertsson as my " advocate " and a list of other details. A copy also was handed over to the President of the sitting SC as well as Mr. Albertsson, before the trial started (see encl. documents ). The SC-trial being held all the same I have interpreted as the Public Prosecutor's de facto rejection of my plea. 

1987: The 20th of October the SC-Judges: Gudmundur Jónsson, Gudmundur Skaftason, Arnljótur Björnsson and Magnús Þ.Torfason issued their Confirmation of the sentence of the Criminal Court. But SC-Judge Gaukur Jörundsson issued a Special Vote based on his concept of our Constitution ( see encl. documents ). Whereby all domestic remedies in the case have been exhausted. 

Conclusion: I hereby complain of the Icelandic State's violation of Art. 6, 3 c of Sec.I and Art. 10 of Sec.I of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe.  And  the violation of eventually other Art. that further consideration might add to the list. 

___________________________________ 
Thorgeir Thorgeirson ( sign ) 
 
 
 

 I. 

In the first article the following imputations are considered to be defamatory: 
 

1. In paragraph 3: " uniformed beasts "

2. In paragraph 6: " of those uniformed beasts "

3. In paragraph 6: " That boy's room-mates told me that his injuries had been caused by bouncers of a restaurant and some policemen. I refrained from believing this instantly so I inquired among the hospital staff and; Yes, right they were: there we had a victim of the Reykjavík night squad."

4. In paragraph 12: "Then I found out that most people knew various stories of persons who had had a similar or even worse experience from the uniformed beasts. Individuals had been brought back to the intellectual capacity of a new-born child as a result of choke holds that policemen and bouncers learn  and  use with brutal  spontaneity instead of handling people with prudence and care. Such stories are abundant and you can hardly treat them as simple lies any more."

5. In paragraph 13: " victims of our police brutality "

6. In paragraph 15: "allowing brutes and sadists to practice their perverted mentality..."

In the second article the following imputations are considered to be defamatory: 

1. In paragraph 46: "Captain Bjarnason's behavior was so typical of what gradually is becoming the public opinion of our police force in defense: Bullish falsifications, illegal actions, superstition, hasted stupidity."

The aforecited defamatory imputations that are directed against members of the Reykjavík police force without naming or assigning of individuals are considered to violate art. 108 of the general penal law nr. 19/1940.  

The claim is that the defendant be punished and sentenced to pay all costs of the case. 

The Public Prosecutor Office, Reykjavík, 
13th of August 1985. 

   (signed) Thordur Björnsson 
  (stamped) Public Prosecutor Reykjavík 

2 

The case will proceed at the criminal court of Reykjavík, helot at Borgartún 7, court room A, Tuesday the 10th of Sept- ember 1985 at 10 o'clock  and the defendant is summoned to appear in court to hear the suit, answer it and hear his sentence. 

Chamber of Criminal 
Courts, Reykjavík, 
the 9th of Sept. 1985. 

   (signed) Pétur Gudgeirsson 
 (stamped) The Criminal Court of Reykjavík 

back 

This Brief and Exposition of Claims. Also the defendant's exposition with attached documents, i.e. a judgment in French, pronounced in Paris in 1857 over Gustave Flaubert, with documents relating to that judgment; a photocopy from Helgarpósturinn of 17 October 1985, an article on Sigurjón Sigurðsson, director of police in Reykjaík then in office; an article by Helgi Skúli Kjartansson in Lesbók Morgunblaðsins from 9 November 1985, and an article by Álfrún Gunnlaugsdóttir and Matthías Viðar Sæmundsson in Morgunblaðið of 27 May 1986. 

The defendant requests that the case be dismissed from court or that he be acquitted of all charges, and that he be indemnified and his counsel granted lawyer's fees on account of the proceedings in the lower instance; his counsel kr. 25,000.-, and himself kr. 50,000.-. 

I reiterate the main points relating to facts of the case. The defendant has been working as an author for many years and enjoyed the recognition of public authorities, as shown i.a. by the payment of author's salaries. His work has been conducted under the protection of the final provision of Article 72 of the Constitution, which reads: "Censorship or other limitations to freedom of press may never be enacted." 
The defendant is indicted on account of individual words and sentences contained in the his two newspaper articles "Let Us Consider Now", and "Strike While the Fly Is on My Nose...", published in Morgunblaðið on 7 and 20 December 1983. 

The articles are not directed against particular public servants on account of their duties in public office. Their aim is rather to bring judicial authorities to endeavor to limit and prevent maltreatment and permanent injury inflicted on the citizens by policemen on duty. The Minister of Justice has replied to the writings of the defendant, and stated that the matter would be considered. 

Efforts to have the Reykjavík Police Association publish or exhibit its decision or resolution to lodge a complaint on account of the defendant's writings have been unsuccessful, cf. court exhibit no. XXII, and it is not certain, either, that such a resolution has been made, cf., the testimony of Einar Bjarnason, chairman of the Reykjavík Police Association, in criminal court on 15 November 1985. No individual public servant has lodged a complaint on account of the defendant's writings. 

The person to whom a reference is made in the defendant's earlier article was not Trausti Elliðason, notwithstanding the fact that the prosecution has made that assumption and exhibited evidence relating to him. As the case has progressed no confirmation of Trausti Elliðason's connections to the defendant's earlier article has been discovered. 

The Public Prosecutor has not attended to his duties relating to the conduct of this case. He has not made an appearance during all court sessions when the case has been brought up; he was not in attendance, e.g., when a videotape of a program broadcast on Television 13 December 1983 was shown. 
During the program policemen discussed the defendant's work in an unjust and illegal manner without an opportunity being offered him to answer on television; besides, allegations were made by others in the course of the program concerning the exercise of police duties, which were not less serious than those made in the defendant's writings. The Public Prosecutor has not submitted a brief in support of his claims in the indictment after the case has been treated in criminal court, and does not plan to do so in the criminal court. 

Arguments Relating to the Facts and the Law: The defendant's arguments in support of dismissal and acquittal are the following: The indictment constitutes an infringement on the part of the prosecution authority of the defendant's rights. His articles are cut down into individual sentences and words, in violation of Article 4 para. 2 of the Copyright Act, no. 73/1972, which reads: "Altering the product of a copyright holder, or publishing his product in such a manner or in such context as to prejudice his artist's honor or individuality, is prohibited." This conduct must result in dismissal of the case. 

The prosecution has waived submitting a brief in criminal court in support of the indictment. This means both that the prosecution authority has ceased prosecuting its case, and  therefore  the  case  should be terminated or acquittal granted for that reason alone. This also has the effect that preconditions for the defense counsel's work are lacking. After evidence has been collected in criminal court he lacks knowledge of the arguments the prosecution may employ when the case is submitted for adjudication. Thus the conditions as regards the substance of the arguments of the defense counsel are lacking, and he can not justly or equitably be expected to reply to arguments of which he may have very limited knowledge. The case should be dismissed from court on these grounds alone. 

As regards particular points of law relating to alleged violations of Article 108 of the General Penal Code no. 19/1940, the defendant wishes to state that it was not his intention to vituperate or insult or bring forth defamatory allegations against any particular public servant on account of the discharge of his duty; nor has any public servant lodged a complaint. 

I also call attention to the fact that the Morgunblaðið published the defendant's articles in about 40,000 copies. If anyone "brought forth" alleged insults or other expressions covered by the Article it is clearly Morgunblaðið. 

It is right and very proper to draw attention to activity which may cause physical injury, bring it to light, and request official action to prevent it. Such indications command little attention unless published in the media, and even that frequently goes unnoticed. Strong words and stylistic artifices also seem necessary to awaken people. This fact is better known by authors and various specialists than by the general public. 
Each of the last three points should by themselves suffice to bring about acquittal of the prosecution's charges. 

Disclosure can not be avoided of the fact that the defendant has doubted the technical and subjective ability of the judge of the case, and of the Public Prosecutor, to read, and requested an investigation of this and an entry into the record, which request went unheeded. For this reason and to this extent the court session of 28 April 1986 was wrongly recorded. This is a source of great concern, to say the least. 

The defendant's request was prompted by the indications of authors from various countries whom the defendant met in West Germany last winter. In their opinion the case of the defendant resembled in various ways cases from the Soviet Union, as they considered that judges and other holders of power read laws and other rules almost exclusively with the understanding desirable in the view of the authorities, not objectively. It is also well known that language used by public authorities and various experts is so different from ordinary spoken language that it is very difficult and sometimes impossible for the general public to understand the authorities. There are also examples of authorities misunderstanding other authorities. 

Reading is highly important in connection with the case of the defendant. It is most important that his articles are read in their entirety, but not as individual words or sentences. The lawyer of the Police Association, Svala Thorlacius, seems originally to have understood this, cf. her letter in court exhibit  no.  III, of  27 December 1983. Later, an indication was received from the office of the Public Prosecutor to the effect that individual words and sentences should be taken out of the articles. The Office of the Public Prosecutor also seems to consider that not all provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no.  74/ 1974, need to be taken seriously, such as the beginning of Article 20 and also a provision of the same Act stipulating that the prosecution is to safeguard what may bring about acquittal of the defendant or work in his favor. Various other conduct of the prosecution authority indicates that it does not derive the common understanding from reading laws, rather an understanding which suits financial appropriations to the Office and other condit- ions pertaining to it. 

The judge of the case, Pétur Guðgeirsson, seems to read and understand the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Copyright Act in a similar way as the prosecution authority, as evidenced by his decision of 25 September 1985 of not to withdraw. The request for the judge's withdrawal was based on his tolerating the above infringements of law with a case in progress in criminal court. 

I also call attention to the court session of 10 September 1985, where the following was recorded: 
"The judge mentions that the indictment was served the defendant at his home yesterday, summoning him to appear in court at 10 a.m. today." Attention is drawn to this as the following had been written on the indictment: "The above case will be brought up in a session of the Criminal Court of Reykjavík Tuesday 10 September 1985 at 10.00 a. m., and  the  defendant is summoned to appear in court at that time to hear the charges, conduct his defense, and receive judgment 
. 
Reykjavík 9 September 1985. 
Bjarni Matthíasson (sign.)" 
 

In the defendant's opinion the above points are conducive to doubt as regards the judge's ability to read; however, the defendant trusts him to read French, cf. the document exhibited. 

I refer again to the requests and arguments made, and in support of them I refer to the documents exhibited, in so far as they support the defendant's claims. 
In particular I refer to the defendant's articles which have been exhibited, such as his exposition and the defense counsel's letter on court exhibit no. 12. 

I submit the case for adjudication. 

Reykjavík 3 June 1986. 

                                    Respectfully, 

To the Criminal Court of Reykjavík. 
 

back 

A FEW FACTS 
I.  The Reykjavík police have repeatedly been observed in the act of taking advantage of circumstances for hurting people. Sometimes this is done inadvertently; sometimes not. The same applies to doormen at restaurants. Sometimes these two groups even cooperate among themselves. Irrefutable reports and medical inspection certificates can be made available to prove this. Even the courts have verified this. And this also fits very well with the conclusions of studies performed abroad, where humanity is, naturally, of the same species as we here, possessing similar inclinations and weaknesses. My personal stance as regards this fact is not expressed in my article "Let Us Consider Now", except in the sentence: " I have seen our policemen perform many a good deed and some of the very fine people I know are policemen. 
  We cannot do without them ". 
  The Public Prosecutor's indictment seeks to conceal this sentence. 
  But why? 

II.  It has not proved possible to bring Icelandic authorities to perform a realistic and objective study of these matters. Nor is it they who suffer battery by defective policemen and doorkeepers. Except in rare cases. And such cases may be solved by simpler methods. 

III. It is of course the general public that suffers battery by policemen and doorkeepers. Such an experience is quite memorable, and, in the normal way of things, one person tells another. In that process descriptions frequently tend to become exaggerated. As the instances increase in number a public opinion is formed, which naturally is more rough-hewn, even, than the problem itself. To a significant extent, I used this public opinion as a main feature of my article "Let Us Consider Now". Public opinion is, of course, a fact by itself, and its causes are generally of less import and more agreeable. The two must be kept separated, since for example criticism of a landscape painting can never be regarded as a condemnation of the terrain where the painter stood while he applied the colors to the canvas, can it? 

IV.  If public opinion turns sour confidence in policemen is lost, also in policemen who never have as much as hurt a fly. In the autumn of 1983 this loss of confidence had assumed proportions outright dangerous for public welfare. So, when the case of Skafti Jónsson emerged, I became aware of this danger. And my oft mentioned article published in Morgunblaðið of 7 December 1983 was my reaction to this dangerous situation. By writing the article I considered myself performing the duty of an honorable writer who studies the spirit of the nation and reports his findings without any eva ions. This is clear to any person who is willing to read the article in its entirety using the whole of his mental faculties to perceive what is written there. 

V.   The article is, of course, especially written for persons who are completely literate, even though there is no possibility of preventing persons who read badly from viewing the text in their own way. But I can naturally not assume legal responsibility for such faults on the part of my readership, unless I waive my constitutional right of freedom of expression. Unfortunately, the reactions of the Police Association and later of the Public Prosecutor have their origins in the confused manner of reading which often is due to psychiatric disturbances, mental excitation, or proclivities which I still less desire to discuss. 

THE FACTS CONNECTED 
Since public opinion was, I thought, the main danger in this case, I made it the main theme of the article "Let Us Consider Now". For the most part I disregarded Fact I, as I was aware that such assertions would be in conflict with Article 108 of the General Penal Code, which I, admittedly, regard as a silly relic of the past, but wanted to honor in full all the same. The article was intentionally written in such a way as to avoid violating the law, but at the same time to pose a question pressing enough to reach the ears of people through the background noise of the media. And there was a trap, to be sure, in borrowing the cars from Hannes Sigfússon's poetic simile of the Reykjavík night, and turning them into police vehicles (cf. court exhibit no. XVII). A trap into which the board of the Police Association stumbled directly - out of their wits, and absolutely illiterate with rage and fury. 
But the main purpose of the article, and its conclusion, was the request to the Minister to have an investigation carried out on whether public opinion is correct or incorrect. The article was intended as a lawful, urgent question. 

WHAT ARE THE ANSWERS? 
Even though my intention was to write an article completely within the limits of the law I shall not hide the fact that I also tried to phrase the text in such a way as to elicit answers from the parties concerned. The question, of course, was about the truthfulness of the menacing public opinion. If this were mere falsehood the police authorities (who alone may possess comprehensive knowledge of these matters) could be expected to react in the composed, confident and calm manner of respectable, honest souls. The board of the Police Association and the director of police would simply have recommended to the Minister that he initiate at the earliest opportunity impartial investigation of the matter asked for. Such a reaction would also have calmed the public considerably, as it would have borne witness to good faith. 
The other possibility was naturally that there might be some reality behind the rumor, in which case the reaction of the police would be different, because violence has always been characteris tic of the behavior of those who are aware of their insecurity and exposedness. 
And the reaction was worse than I possibly ever could have imagined. Alas. 
But my question has certainly received an exceedingly clear answer. It has now been under way for two and a half years, and been provided by many and powerful parties. Of that I shall not complain, as an author's mission should be asking society questions which demand its direct answers. And certainly I have been answered, by the holders of authority as well as by the public. 
I would now like to describe those answers. 

THE REACTIONS OF POLICE LEADERS 
The chairman of the Police Association, Einar Bjarnason - who seems to me a particularly truthful person as well as speaking very good Icelandic - he testified in court. A study of his testimony shows how police leaders reacted to their own understanding of my article in Morgunblaðið of 7 December 1983. 
During the following days these defenders of the law decided to occupy themselves ( outside working hours ) with breaking into the computerized files of the City Hospital to seek out a suitable person who had been at the hospital at the same time as myself. And in this way they found a lad of meager import whom they somehow persuaded to sign a highly dubious document which they themselves had composed and typed. Then they violated the Broadcasting Act in order to introduce this counterfeit product of theirs to the public. All these illegal acts were committed with the purpose of "cleansing the police" of charges of which they never were, in fact, accused directly. Much to his credit, Bjarnason has acknowledged all this, and has taken a large part of the blame on himself, even though he made the mistake of denying the existence of this notable document, as he carelessly forgot the fact that it had been preserved in the State Broadcasting Service's tape collection. And this may also have been due to his lack of memory, without ostentation. He also made it completely clear that the comrades had done these shady deeds as private individuals, not as servants of the authorities. I have called this conduct on the part of the companions "bullish falsifications, illegal actions, superstition, hashed stupidity". Of course I am aware that these words are harsh, but I shall stand firm in their defense if action by reason of them is brought against me in a civil court. And then the policemen will also have to answer for the acts which caused these words to be expressed. But I have so far failed to grasp how a prosecutor in his senses, who also has numerous times appeared sober in this criminal court, can bring himself to indict for violation of Article 108 of the General Penal Code, no. 19 of 1940, on this account. Could it be that this primitive, crude attitude, which has deprived the guardians of the law of their prudence as well as of their knowledge of reading, is either infectious or simply programmed into the system in its entirety? 

REACTIONS OF THE PUBLIC 
After my writings were published in Morgunblaðið in December 1983 it so happened that a multitude of people began to contact me. Probably in their thousands rather than hundreds. They stopped me on the street, they phoned me, and they sent me letters to describe their experiences with the police. Nobody to back the police, though. Even if I assumed that every second person was playing with my gullibility and relating fiction, the information was outright awesome. What was most disturbing about this, was, however, that whenever the police had handled a man or a woman roughly, the victim seemed to grab the phone and call me, whether by day or night. Some of this was just confounded nonsense and pure self-pity, because police must of course do their jobs, and then blandness won't always do. But in between there were examples of bad mistakes that need not have been made. I paid attention to this reaction of the public and compared it to the reaction of the system described above, because I regard myself an employee of the public, and not a servant of any authorities. All the handshakes, phone calls and letters were accompanied by endless thanks for "courage", "frankness", even "daring". People sometimes call obvious things all sorts of strange names. 
Remarkably, the victims very suddenly stopped phoning - almost as if a finger had been snapped - sometime early in 1984. The frequency of the calls was not progressively reduced, as could have been expected. Unfortunately I did not realize this until it was too late to make a note of the date. But I would like to defer discussing that point until later and in a different connection. When bringing up the question of what good may have come from my struggle. 

THE REACTIONS OF OFFICIALDOM, THE COURT, AND OF MEMBERS OF THE ALTHING 
My lawyer will, of course, conduct his fencing with the united prosecution and judicial authority about the sinister violations of law which have been committed in order to sustain this action against me. All the same I can not remain silent about my amazement at how the prosecution and the jud- iciary have joined in interpreting the entire case in the primitive, illiterate way of the police; how explicit statute provisions have been violated in the direct purpose of evading the assignment of having to read my text (two short newspaper articles) with the coherence demanded by the ethics of civilized society. And I may well add that I was not less surprised when it came to light that neither did the Ministry feel able to read the Copyright Act or other texts when required. And it was like putting the final touch on my amazement when the Althing also turned out to suffer from illiteracy of the same bizarre kind. 
On the basis of this experience I have compiled a little theory. 

ILLITERACY (ANALFABETISMUS) AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POWER 
Illiteracy was probably an effective instrument of power in the hands of the ruling classes of society ever since laws and subsequently other texts were first written down. During the middle ages and until modern times the illiteracy of the masses provided the power elite with the opportunity of interpreting (in their own favor) all laws, whether religious or secular. One might have expected this instrument to become blunt at first, and then ineffective as public literacy progressed. But traditional instruments of power are tough, as history shows, and very often they survive those radical revolutions, which actually do not kill anything except the revolutionaries themselves (to enable the old instruments of power to survive in a new form). In our present day illiteracy is still the most potent instrument of the ruling groups, but not illiteracy of the public, who now read with ease. The classes in power just become illiterate instead, with respect to anything that does not suit the interests of ruling groups and elites. This illiteracy is, evidently, of the mind, coming from within, due to psychological needs and a disturbed self-image. This illiteracy is the sister of violence. 
Whole books could be written about this - for those able to read. And maybe it will be done. 
It would be done in defence of the human being as it originally was. 
But that is probably of little concern to the criminal court. 

HAVE MY WRITINGS DONE ANY GOOD ? 
The answer to the question is: YES. 
I have discovered a law of illiteracy as an instrument of power. That's one thing. Then the police; they seem to have improved somewhat from this. I mentioned before how suddenly the phone calls of their victims stopped. 
Naturally an order from above could have been the reason. At first I was reluctant to believe it. Then I began to hear stories of tact and surprising calmness evinced by police in the most difficult situations. Of this I was informed by night owls from the nightlife jungle. Could a new policy have been instituted? I asked myself, but did not venture to answer in the affirmative until late in the autumn of 1985. At that time the newspapers published two works which somehow managed to convince me. On 7 October I read in the Helgarpósturinn a particularly convincing "close-up" of chief of police Sigurjón Sigurðsson. The article reflected well the discipline he maintained of his men. Thus, a simple command of his could readily have solved the problem here under discussion. And there are few things more probable than that a man of his intelligence was displeased the confessions of his men, made by their reactions to my writings. He may even have thought that the Public Prosecutor also went too far as the matter continued. That was an opinion frequently heard in town by then. The scale was tipped, however, by a writing published in Lesbók Morgunblaðisins on 7 November 1985, in which these matters were approached from an entirely new angle. There, a young and rising historian wrote a panegyric of the Reykjavík police force. Only a year earlier such a literary work would have been received as pure mockery. A wise man has, admittedly, called the work a dissertation for fulfilling the requirements for membership of the Oddfellows - or perhaps some other society of equal distinction, and the author a son in-law of Eimskip Ltd. But that was only said in order to please me. The writer believed that I could not stand hearing anything good about the police. In which he was mistaken. I do think it most improbable that a historian of Helgi Skúli Kjartansson's capacities would write anything at all about the police's recovery unless he knew to his certainty according to reliable sources. And felt certain, too, that such recovery was in progress. However, sycophancy goes a little too far when the police are praised for their chivalry at Austurvöllur on 30 March 1949. But it remains unaltered that the historian was aware of something that made him prophetic as he wrote. 
And may his words stand. 
From all this I draw the simple conclusion that the debate ensuing from the publication of my writings in December 1983 led to some kind of improvement of the behaviour of the police. Which is good. 
I also regard it as important to have had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the working methods of the criminal court, and being shocked by them. I gather that the court handles about 3,500 cases annually, which statistically amounts to the entire nation standing charged of crime in slightly more than 70 years. If other defendants are treated in a manner similar to myself this means plainly that the Office of the Public Prosecutor conducts relentless warfare against the nation as a whole. If similar arbitrariness and injustice are employed in other defendants' cases - and there is hardly any reason to suppose that I am an exception - then this is a problem of which an honest writer must be thoroughly aware. 
And I should be grateful. 

FINAL WORDS 
(to the Judge) 
The two writings which I have been indicted for publishing are both written for the sake of the public good, as I regard myself an employee of the public, not a slave of the authorities at all. The construction and composition of the earlier writing 
(" Let Us Consider Now ") is directly of such nature as to nowhere fall under the scope of Article 108 of the General Penal Code. That ought to be evident to any completely literate person. The later writing ("Strike While the Fly Is On My Nose") concerns activities of a more than dubious nature performed by Reykjavík law enforcement officers as private individuals outside working hours, while the sinister deeds in question, to be sure, were a reaction on their part to my writing about them in their capacities as law enforcement officers. Even if the suitability of Article 108 were recognized I fail to see that it can protect violations of law dabbled in by public servants in their spare time. That matter must pertain to the Civil Court, unless martial law is declared in Iceland on account of my writings ? 
And that is not very likely to happen. 

As I am aware that my judge is able to read French I would appreciate being allowed to attach to this document a photocopy of a 131 year old judgment in a famous case against the author Gustave Flaubert. The prosecutor's presentation of the case is also attached. That judgment has been considered by many to mark the origins of modern copyright law, i.e., exactly the ideas reflected by the international conventions on copyright which our country is obliged to obey - and those ideas are also clearly evidenced by Article 4 of the Copyright Act, no. 73/1972, to which I called the attention of the judge already when the present case was first brought up in court: that Þórður Björnsson's indictment itself violated. The judge elected to turn a blind eye to this, hopefully only due to lack of knowledge, not to willful meanness. Therefore I would like to ask him to read carefully the arguments of the French prosecutor of 131 years ago. 
His speech is a cultural jewel of which the French are very proud, as the action bears witness to all the best aspects of their cultural heritage. If not, it could never have laid the foundations of modern copyrights. It has appeared to me that your own and Björnsson's action in my case bears witness to many of the worst things which Icelandic culture has ever had to offer. That is why I take the liberty to point out to you what makes this famous speech most valuable: 
Certainly the speaker is boiling with rage, furious, and flaming with indignation. But he nevertheless takes care to describe the entire thought of Flaubert, and never dissects it at his own pleasure in order to facilitate the matter for himself. In this way he takes care to ask only for judgment of what Flaubert has written, but never requests judgment on the basis of his own opinion of the writings in question. In other words the prosecutor is able to read, and expects the same of the judges. Only there- fore did his speech become one of the brightest gems in legal philosophy, despite his personal opinion of the matter at issue. That is, he did not expect Justitia to lift her veil to look askew at the interests of those trying to silence yet another author. And his speech made the difference for European civilization. Since then, this is how Europeans are to treat authors. And so they have done, except that a few rogues like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and others played truant from this school. Similarly those east of the iron curtain, and the Icelanders, want to manage these things their own way. But such attempts very often fail miserably, to tell the truth. They end up in disgrace. Remember the Spegill case? 
Now read these sheets carefully, Pétur, and consider whether it would not be right to grant my request to have a literate assistant judge study my texts, because it actually seems to me that subjective illiteracy is and will remain a question of employment for you - as for other judges in this country. You may well rest assured that the undersigned person will not regard himself bound to accept anything less than complete acquittal in this case with payment of full legal costs to my lawyer and full compensation to myself for being prevented from attending my job, because you should of course have stopped the proceedings forthwith when I indicated (during the first session) that the indictment was in violation of the laws applicable to my profession and a shame in the company of civilized nations. 

                            Respectfully, 
 

<signature> 
Thorgeir Thorgeirson 
                         Author 

Enclosures: 

1) LE PROCES DE MADAME BOVARY (16 sheets) 
2) The Right to Write, an article from Morgunblaðið 27 May 1986 
3) The Guardian Angels, an article from Lesbók Morgunblaðsins 7 November 1986 
4) A "Close-Up" of Sigurjón Sigurðsson, Helgarpósturinn, 17 October 1985 

The defendant shall pay all cost of the case inclusive the fee of ikr. 20.000 to his appointed advocate, Tómas Gunnarsson.  

Pétur Gudgeirsson  

This judgment is read aloud at 10:00 h. in presence of the convict and his advocate. The convict announces that he wishes to appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iceland.  

Read aloud. Confirmed.  

They leave the court at 10:05 h.  
Court closed.  

Pétur Gudgeirsson  
Witnesses:  
Hjördís Thorsteinsdóttir  
Gudm. T. Gudmundsson  

Confirming this is the name of the judge and the court's seal.  
Chamber of Criminal  
Courts Reykjavík  

July 22nd, 1986  
(signed) Pétur Gudgeirsson  
(seal) The Criminal Court of Reykjavík  

The above stated judgment received by the Prosecutor's office along with a letter of last August 14th, and which the convict, Thorgeir Thorgeirson, has wished to appeal and the Prosecutor also considers essentially correct to appeal to the Supreme court for aggravation, which hereby is done and the case shall proceed as soon as possible.  

Consequently the convict, Thorgeir Thorgeirson, is summoned to be present at the Supreme court when the case will proceed there, to hear the suit, answer it and hear his sentence. No further summon is to be expected in this case.  

The Public Prosecutor Office, Reykjavík  

September 30th 1986  

(signed)  Hallvardur Einvardsson  
(stamp)  Public Prosecutor Reykjavík  

Today this summon of appeal has been rendered to me. I wish that advocate Tómas Gunnarsson be appointed for my defense.  

Reykjavík 13 - 10 - 1986  

    (signed) Thorgeir Thorgeirson  
Signed in my presence d.s.  
(signed) Bjarni Matthíasson  
policeman  

Advocate Tómas Gunnarsson is appointed to speak for the defendant at the Supreme court.  

Reykjavík, October 15th 1986.  

(signed) Magnús Th. Torfason  
(stamp) The Supreme Court of Iceland. 

back 

Hallvardur Einvardsson 
Public Prosecutor 
Hverfisgötu 6 
101 Reykjavík 

Please find enclosed the copies of two letters to my "appointed advocate" in the Supreme court case nr. 272/1986 as well as a copy of a statement, dated May 5th, which I have sent to all the Supreme court Judges by registered mail. As demonstrated in those letters I am of the opinion that my fundamental rights have been essentially violated by the Supreme court's President as he appointed this person to "advocate" my interests. In my mind this appointment is a violation of human rights, a limitation of freedom of speech and a forceful abuse against an accused person. In this connection I refer to your duties concerning accused persons as well as to the Convention for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe, and to the law on the Supreme court of Iceland. And I specially want to point out the fact that over three weeks had passed from the date of Albertsson's appointment until he had the courage to convey the situation to me. Without my knowledge he had, during this period, been in charge of my affairs, which he had been discussing with a completely alien person without my permission. 
Should all this be considered normal procedure I must assume that a general discussion about the daily routine of the concerned High Offices would perhaps be correctly timed now. And furthermore I reserve all rights to any legal action against this injustice, especially as I am convinced that the High Court as well as your own High Office, would only gain in respect and honor by securing for each and every person the fundamental rights we all are meant to enjoy from the date of our birth - judges and defendants alike. 

Finally I should like to use the opportunity to forward the wish that the obligatory tapes of the Criminal court sessions of the case be submitted in the Supreme court as documents of the case, in accordance with the law on official proceedings. 
 

Respectfully, 

( signed ) Thorgeir Thorgeirson 

back 
 
 

Acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 4th of this month, posted the 5th, together with a list of cases to be heard at the Supreme court where your name has been connected with mine in a manner I can by no means tolerate. 
I must use this opportunity to remind you of my registered letter to you dated May 7th of this year. From this letter you must have understood that you can by no means consider yourself as my advocate. Any confidence between you and me is thoroughly out of the question and you are, of that reason alone, completely disqualified for the defense of my case. Other reasons for your disqualifications, wherever freedom of expression is at stake, we shall discuss at a later occasion. Your appointment as my advocate is unlawful, even if it is made with the knowledge of all the Supreme court judges, which only renders each and every one of them disqualified as such, should the case proceed the 22nd of this month according to the plan you forwarded to me - and should you then be figuring in my role. There is harmony, of course, in this plan of a disqualified court having a disqualified trial with disqualified prosecutor and a disqualified pseudo advocate - all against one disqualified criminal. Especially as this case is more and more exposing the generally disqualified judicial system of our country. But in spite of all harmony of this strange case I must object to your methods and make it clear to you that I am forced to regard you as a plain employee of the state judicial system in the case and that you are in no way defending my interests. Of course it will be your own choice what errands you run for other people - likewise it has to be my own choice to whom I confide my interests. That is where your hopes of a profit ought to cease. 
In the Supreme court case nr. 272/1986 the interests of the "appointed advocate" do not go together with the interests of the defendant. A judicial system cultivating such nonsense must be a vegetation of injustice and suppression. In such a garden your interests might be blooming for a while but my interests do not grow in that kind of soil and I fear that neither is this the kind of garden where public interest ever will bloom. And that exactly is the headache. 
Therefore I am protesting once again. 

Sincerely 

(signed)Thorgeir Thorgeirson 

back 
 

I am turning to you on account of a difficulty which, as seen from my point of view, can in no way be called a small one. And I am convinced that it has many aspects which concern not only myself alone. In fact one may well say that this is the difficulty of the entire judicial system. The matter relates to my security under the law, and therefore the security of others as well. 
I my opinion I have tried every conceivable approach in order to discuss the matter with the esteemed public offices concerned, but my efforts have been like shouting into the darkness of the night. 
And in my opinion this is not as it should be. My resort now is petitioning your office to have an investigation conducted of 
the measure taken by the  President of the Supreme Court to appoint Mr. Sigurmar K. Albertsson to guard the interests of the defendant in Supreme Court case no. 272/1986: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AGAINST ÞORGEIR ÞORGEIRSON. 
As you are aware from the letters relating to this appointment of which I have already sent copies to your office, the said Mr. Albertsson was appointed my defense counsel on 10 April last without my knowledge and without any notification having been sent to me. This situation persisted for more than three weeks. On 6 May Mr. Albertsson at last notified me of this status of my personal affairs, having discussed it with an unrelated party in the meantime. 
As I understand it, this conduct is in violation of the law. I have not succeeded in obtaining any answers to my requests to the Supreme Court for obligatory information about the court sessions when this decision was made. 
I have already pointed this fact out to your office, but now I request that the matter be investigated. 
I furthermore consider necessary that a thorough investigation be conducted of how the case has emerged through the lower stages of the judicial system and through police investigations. Firstly, no request of the Police Society or its board relating to the complaint has been submitted as asked, despite the fact that the complaint is lodged in the Society's name. Secondly, the case was investigated by policemen who might well consider themselves aggrieved by the written material which gave rise to the complaint. Thirdly, the division of responsibilities between authority of prosecution and judicial authority in the Reykjavík Criminal Court was faulty. Fourthly, the Prosecutor's very indictment document constituted a violation of the Copyright Act in matters directly relating to the interpretation of the text. Fifthly, the judge passed a decision in a dispute involving himself after disagreement arose with him concerning entries into the record. Sixth and seventh, the Public Prosecutor prevented appeal of that decision despite the fact that he had become a party to the case himself, and had already made himself disqualified by violating the law in his indictment. Eighth, the legal duty of recording the criminal court proceedings by phonographic means was not observed, nor were my requests for recording my court submissions in writing heeded. Ninth, my lawyer was reprimanded for merely doing his duty as defense counsel and reiterating a request for the recording of my statements, despite having in every respect conducted himself with surprising calmness and courtesy. Thus the criminal court judge had for all these reasons and by reason of his other conduct clearly become disqualified when he rendered his judgment.Tenth, the judge made himself guilty of misrepresenting to the media the facts relating to his judgment. Eleventh, the Supreme Court has now made itself disqualified by depriving me of my fundamental rights and Twelfthly appointing for me a representative who has not even conferred with me on my defense. 
This is how the matter has come up. 
I ask for an investigation of all 12 particulars, which each by itself should in fact suffice to establish grave doubt as to whether all is in order concerning the rule of law in this country. 
But as a thirteenth question, I would like to ask you kindly to investigate whether there may be a connection between this case and another similar case where the complainant was also in hiding and the Supreme Court disqualified (by reason of the ties of the president of the court to the case, cf., section II.B in the grounds for the judgment of the Reykjavík Criminal Court) which were not invoked by the defense counsel, who lost the case, but his client nevertheless obtained a significant payment from the State Treasury following the judgment. This payment was not subject to much discussion; in a democratic state public funds are not commonly used to purchase the entire issue of a publication, even if some teasing of a public servant has been published there in an allegedly impudent manner. 
I am here referring to Supreme Court Case no. 16/ 1983, which has in common with case no. 272/1986 to have to do with freedom of expression, a matter which is, understandably, of great interest to many people, who likewise have been amazed at the judicial recklessness manifested by that judgment. 
Council for the defense in the "Spegill case" (16/1983) was Mr. Sigurmar K. Albertsson. 
I call attention to the fact that the Supreme Court of Iceland now seems intent upon having the same lawyer, Mr. Sigurmar K. Albertsson, representing the defendant in aother case where the State assails freedom of press following a questionable approach. Is there a connection? 
I am of the opinion that the major part of this nation desires to be as secure under the law as possible; I believe also that most people care especially for their legal security when there is a question of fundamental rights - such as freedom of expression is generally regarded to be. 
 I think that in both cases, the "Spegill case" and this present one, little caution has been evinced. Even though both cases have to do with vain trifles and the squeamishness of individual public servants, this class of litigation has to be regarded as concerning fundamentals. Because the rule of law is something that must be honored without exception, or else lost. 
There should be no possibility of arbitrariness whatsoever. 
As you will understand nobody would express serious doubts about his own security under the law, or that of others, merely in jest. I would appreciate if you bear that in mind, and also if you remember that this petition of mine is not least due to my fear that if nothing is done the courts might start to lose public confidence. 
And that, in fact, is the central point of my letter to you: That you have an investigation conducted of the appointment of defense counsel in the said case, and that certain related particulars be investigated with the objective that both I myself and others will in the future be able to trust better the legal system of our country. 

In respect and goodwill, 
( signature) Thorgeir Thorgeirson 

Copy to the Supreme Court 
the Minister of Justice and the media. 

The appealed judgment of the Reykjavík Criminal court was pronounced June 16th 1986 as follows: 
The defendant, Thorgeir Thorgeirsson, shall pay a fine of ikr. 10.000 or be imprisoned for 8 days should the fine not be paid within 4 weeks from the rendering of this judgment. 
The defendant shall pay all cost of the case inclusive the fee of ikr. 20.000 to his appointed advocate, Tómas Gunnarsson. 
Pétur Gudgeirsson 

This judgment is read aloud at 10:00 h in presence of the convict and his advocate. The convict announces that he wishes to appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iceland. 
Read aloud. Confirmed. 
They leave the court at 10:05 h. 
Court closed. 
Pétur Gudgeirsson 
Witnesses: 
Hjördís Thorsteinsdóttir 
Gudm. T. Gudmundsson 
The following summon of appeal is presented: 
The above stated judgment received by the Prosecutor's office along with a letter of last August 14th, and which the convict, Thorgeir Thorgeirson, has wished to appeal and the Prosecutor also considers essentially correct to appeal to  the Supreme court for aggravation, which hereby is done and the case shall proceed as soon as possible. 
Consequently the convict, Thorgeir Thorgeirson, is summoned to be present at the Supreme court when the case will proceed there, to hear the suit, answer it and hear his sentence. No further summon is to be expected in this case. 
   The Public Prosecutor Office, 
   Reykjavík, September 30th 1986 

   Hallvardur Einvardsson ( sign ) 

The Secretary presents the documents of the case marked A-O. The case proceeded verbally. Public prosecutor Hallvardur Einvardsson represented the Prosecution forwarding the following claims on behalf of his Office: 

I. That defendant Thorgeirson be convicted in accordance with the indictment and his conviction be aggravated from what the Criminal court had decided. 
II. That defendant Thorgeirson be sentenced to pay all cost of the case, i.e. the cost of the Criminal court case plus the total cost of the appellate case inclusive a reasonable prosecutor's fee to the State. 

Appointed advocate Sigurmar K. Albertsson represented the defendant forwarding the following claims: 
I. That the appealed judgment be annulled ab initio together with the Bill of  Indictment issued 13/8 1985 and the case be remanded for a different procedure. 

II. For secondary liability: discharge. 

Furthermore he claims an advocate's fee as decided by the Supreme court. The advocate summed up the case and mentioned that he was pleading as an appointed advocate in accordance with the 3rd par. of art. 179 of the law nr. 74/1974, against the protests of the defendant, who had wished to speak for himself at the Supreme court. 

The Public prosecutor spoke again remonstrating the advocate's claims for anulment of the appealed judgment ab initio together with the Bill of Indictment. Annulment could not be motivated. The Prosecution demand a judgment on merits in this case according to the Prosecutor's former claims, which the Prosecutor reiterated and submitted the case to court. Then the Court recessed while the Judges, the Public prosecutor and the appointed advocate watched the videotaped copy of the program "Differing opinions" that had been broadcast on the State TV, December 13th 1983. The videotape was marked: Ó. The 
defendant's advocate spoke again reiterating some of his former arguments and finally reiterated his claims and submitted the case to court. The case passed for judgment. 
Court closed. 

Erla Jónsdóttir ( sign ) 
Correct trancript certified by: 
( signed )Erla Jónsdóttir 
(stamp) The Supreme Court of Iceland 
 

Year  1987, Tuesday October 20th the Supreme court of Iceland pronounced, in case nr. 272/1986 

The Public prosecutor 
v/ 
Thorgeir Thorgeirson 

the following judgment: 

This case is judged by the Supreme court Judges Gudmundur Jónsson, Gudmundur Skaftason, Magnus Th. Torfason and appointed Supreme court Judge, Gaukur Jörundsson and Professor Arnljótur Björnsson. 

The case was appealed to the Supreme court by a summon dated September 30th 1986 according to the wishes of the defendant and appealed for aggravation on behalf of the Prosecutor. 

The defendant's appointed advocate claims that the appealed judgment be annuled ab initio together with the Bill of Indictment and the case be remanded for a different procedure. For secondary liability he claims discharge. 

On behalf of the Prosecution the claim of annulment is remonstrated. 

Some new documents have been submitted to the Supreme court. 

In the first place the claim of annulment is based on the fact that the Criminal court Judge Pétur Gudgeirsson had been employed as deputy of the Public prosecutor, during the period this case was investigated by the Office of the public 
prosecutor thus had been disqualified conducting the case and adjudicating it. 
As no evidence has been produced as of the Criminal court judge having personally handled the case at a former stage the claim of annulment shall consequently not be considered. 
Secondly the claim of annulment is based on the same points that had been advertized to the Criminal court on September 24th 1985 and the defendant's advocate at the time had formulated in the following note: 
"The defendant's advocate refers to the fact that no representant of the Prosecution is present at the trial nor has such a person been present at any former sessions in this case. He also refers to the statement of the Judge that the defendant's indication of the Bill of indictment being a violation of art. 4 of the law on copyright nr. 73/1972, has not been introduced to the Public prosecutor. 
Referring to paragr. 1 of art. 20 of the law nr. 74/1974 and number 1 of paragr. 1 of art. 36 the defendant considers the  order of one person executing the roles of both judge and prosecutor in the same case to be unlawful. Considering the lack of initiative to modify this order the replacement of the judge of this case is required." 
The Criminal court Judge denied this request in a decree of his which the Public prosecutor did not pass for an appeal to the Supreme court, cf. number 1 of art. 171 of law nr. 74/1974. No evidence has been produced on the proceedings 
of this case, which is categorized as a legally non prosecuted case in accordance with art. 130 of the aforecited law, that can motivate a disqualification of the judge nor the annulment of the appealed judgment. 

The Criminal court's decision about the defendant's guilt and its application to penal law have to be approved of. The penalty decided by the Criminal court is to be confirmed. The Criminal court decision on cost of the case shall be 
unaltered. 

Accordingly the defendant must be sentenced to pay all cost of the appellate case inclusive a prosecutor's fee of ikr. 20.000 to the State and his Supreme court advocate's salary of ikr. 20.000. The sums are not inclusive taxes. 

Judgment: 

The appealed judgment is to remain unaltered except that the moratorium of the fine is set to 4 weeks from the rendering of this judgment. 

The defendant, Thorgeir Thorgeirson, is to pay all cost of the appellate case inclusive a prosecutor's fee of ikr. 20.000 to the State and his Supreme court advocate Sigurmar K. Albertsson's salary of ikr.20.000. 

This judgment is to be legally executed. 

A dissenting opinion 
of Gaukur Jörundsson, appointed Supreme court Judge for the case nr. 272/1986: 
The Public prosecutor 
v/ 
Thorgeir Thorgeirsson 

In cases prosecuted for punishment of defamatory imputations it has to be made unmistakably clear who is the defamed part. This is necessary for the defence of the accused and for the delicate precision of what inevitable limitations there should be imposed upon the general public debate in this respect. 

The introduction of the Bill of Indictment for this case states that the case is to proceed "for defamatory imputations against policemen", later there is stated, in part III of the indictment, that the mentioned defamatory imputations are directed against members of the Reykjavík police force without naming or assigning  of individuals."    Consequently the interpretation of the indictment is to be that the subject of the criminal act has been the Reykjavík police force in general. 

Even if the comments cited in the indictment are harsh and seem to remain unmotivated, my opinion is, considering the aforementioned formulation of the indictment, that there are no conditions to punish the defendant on grounds of art. 108 of the general penal law, which has to be interpreted with regard to the fundamental constitutional right of free expression of opinions in writing and in speech. 
Consequently I am of the opinion that the defendant be discharged of the claims of Prosecution in this case and the State shall pay all cost of the appellate case inclusive the salary of the defendant's Supreme court advocate. 

Correct transcript certified by 

( signed ) 

Fee ikr. 225,00 received: 
(stamp) The Supreme Court of Iceland 

* 
See also:  
Supreme Court doc:  
A request for investigation   
item thirteen 
 
 
 
 

** 
Judge Vilhjálmsson later withdrew "at his own wish" from the court.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  The content of the memorial: 
  1) A note on Judge Vilhjálmsson's nomination to the Court. 
  2) Notes on the documents I-IX) 1991/13778/88. 
  3) Claims under Art. 50 of the Convention. 
  4) On DOCUMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS in chronological order. 

1) A note on Judge Vilhjálmsson's nomination to the Court. 

However important it may seem to have a judge of one's own nationality on the Court I have to express my fears that the nomination of Mr. Vilhjálmsson might bring discredit to the impartiality of the Court. Personally, I have nothing against Judge Vilhjálmsson but I wish to point out that:  

a) he was among the recipients of a registered letter ( given in doc. k) Icel. 272/1986 ) I sent to all Supreme Court Judges in Iceland, and that he then did take a stand in the case by his silence regarding one of the points I later complained of in my Application to the Commission. Thus his qualification to deal with the case could be questioned.   

b) He was connected with the case of magazine "Spegillinn" (16/1983), mentioned in my request to the Public Prosecutor for official investigation of the Supreme Court ( doc. a) Thorgeirson v. Iceland 1990 ). My request for a special investigation regarding the connection of my case ( 272/1986) to case 16/1983 never was carried out to clear the question, which leaves me with a justified suspicion. *  

c) After my case had been referred to the Commission, Judge Vilhjálmsson did approach me trying to advise the withdrawal of my Application, pronouncing his firm conviction that my Application was "nonsensical". However friendly he has been pronouncing his consultations, this prejudice of his is somewhat disturbing.  

Considering the importance of the Court's impartiality I feel obliged to mention these facts, as each of them might point to a possible conflict of Judge Vilhjálmson's interests while adjudicating. ** 

The Report of the Commission states: "The factual elements upon which the applicant based his strong criticism of the prevailing situation may in some respects be uncorroborated ..." ( p. 24, para 81 ). This statement prompted me to introduce doc. I) 1991/13778/88 containing the full and unabridged defense of the case in the Reykjavik Criminal Court for your reconsideration as well as doc. IV) 1991/ 13778/88 presenting Mr. Valgeirsson's request for an official investigation to clear his own professional reputation, a request of exactly the same nature as the Police Association's request that started my case in December 1983. I should like to draw your kind attention to the prosecutor's answer in Valgeirsson's case, especially the sentence: "A complaint, or at least a reasonable suspicion of such conduct, is a prerequisite for initiating such investigation." As the Public Prosecutor, in my case ( Dec. 1983), undeniably initiated such investigation, without any complaint having been forwarded, he must, at the time, have had as reasonable a suspspicion about police brutality as any other citizen of Iceland. And I see the suspicion of such an authority as a firm corroboration of my credibility. Therefore, I am introducing this exchange of letters into the case. But, of course the main corroboration of my strong criticism lies in the doc.  V) 1991/13778/88 consisting of some fragments from Judge Ingibjörg Benediktdóttir's sentence in a case of police brutality, strikingly similar to what I had been describing in my article "Let us consider now!" in December 1983. I saw no reason for having repeated descriptions of half a dozen witnesses on the same incident translated. Therefore, I am introducing only fragments of this remark-able judgment. If required I can have the whole judgment of 50 pages translated. The choke holds I mention in my article of 7 Dec. 1983 also were subject to investigation in connection with case 232/1991, and I have included translations of testimonies given by different policemen before the court to demonstrate the delicacy of this topic. Their testimonies also support my opinion, already expressed in Dec. 1983, that the majority of policemen are honest but fearful people. Reading this document on the conduct of a policeman in uniform mishandling an innocent citizen he was meant to defend, certainly calls for strong reactions: Words like beastly, savage, brutal, bullish, pervert or sadistic inevitably enter your mind. A harsh action calls for harsh words. 
  Another conclusion of this remarkable judgment might be that Mr. Claessen's statement before the Commission 14.03.1990, on police brutality being extremely uncommon in Iceland, remained uncorroborated. What is true is that Icelandic policemen have seldom suffered sentences for brutality. This was obvious from the react- ions of the Chairman of the Reykjavík Police Association who, when int-erviewed by TV-2 on that occasion, said: "The Court has betrayed us!" But the "traitor" Judge Benediktsdóttir deserves full respect for having conduct- ed a  remarkably objective investigation on police brutality and for pronouncing the consequent judgment. This, of course, she did in the spirit of the revised Code of Criminal Procedure passed at the Althing last April and taking effect in July 1992. 
  The doc. VI) and VII) 1991/13778/88 give an impression of the new spirit the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure is introducing. Allow me to point out the Ministerial Committee's comment on the old system, expressed in the text cited in doc. VI) 1991/13778/88: " This arrangement, bearing all principal characteristics of inquisitorial procedure, was long since obsolete, and inconsistent with legal procedure among civilized nations." This, and the rest of the texts, I must consider as a confession, pronounced by an official committee of worthy specialists, that my complaints under Art. 6 of the Convention were fully justified. And this leads us to the following very correct statement of the Commission's Report ( pag. 24, para 81 ): "In his article, the applicant not only drew the public's attention to a problem of general interest but also pointed out that the present system of investigation regarding alleged police brutality was ineffective and should be replaced by a more effective system." 
  A step in that direction seems to have been made by the revision of the Criminal Code of Iceland passed at the Althing last April. 
  In doc. VII) 1991/13778/88 I have gathered some articles of the revised Code of Criminal Procedure passed in April 1991 to be enacted in July 1992. All the innovations contained in those articles may be observed in connection  with my case, but I should like to stress that Art. 123: "If the prosecutor does not appear in court the case can not be brought to a conclusion "..  and Art. 155: "... the President of the Supreme Court shall appoint the defense counsel unless the defendant requires to conduct his own defense ... " are now prevailing law in Iceland stating, I hope, the point of view that doing otherwise is wrong. Thus the Court of Human Rights would indeed not be "reviewing the relevant domestic law and practice in abstracto" ( Comm. Rep. page 24, para 56 ) by deciding on breach of Art. 6 of the Convention in my case, as this would be in no conflict with the revised Code of Criminal Procedure now prevailing. 
  Doc. II) & III) 1991/13778/88 are forwarded in order to describe the slow pace of the old procedural system. A request for official investigation was decided upon years later allowing injustice to operate in the meantime. Under such a system a person would have to live at least 300 ears to win recognition of fundamental individual rights. If ever. 

3)  Claims under Art. 50 of the Convention. 

In doc. IX) 1991/13778/88 I have outlined my claims under Art. 50 of the Convention. The claims under I. cover a considerable part of the direct cost of the case. The claims under II. are based on the fact that for 7 years I have occupied the situation of a dissident person. Different state organs as Police force, Courts, State radio, State television and others have more or less been organized against me in a way that never was completely fair. As mentioned in the document my claims are absolutely minimal. In fact they could be seen as just symbolical figures to fulfill the moral duty of claiming some reparation from a state that demonstratively has been practicing persecution of an individual on account of his opinions. 
  Some of the sales figures of my books are still in round numbers, but the exact figures will be ready and confirmed by January 1992. On request, a further documentation on the claims as well as the background of my articles will be forwarded. 

4)  On DOCUMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS in chronological order. 

Realizing the mess I have made of the numbering system of the forwarded documents and observations of the case, I had a special booklet with all my material in chronological order produced. This I did to facilitate the study of the case and, especially, to make references during the hearings more convenient. Under separate cover I am sending 15 copies for the Commission and the Judges of the Court. Should more copies be needed I can have them made at a short notice. 

Respectfully, 

_____________________ 
Thorgeir Thorgeirson 

To 
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 
STRASBOURG 

I thank you for having invited me to speak for myself and, eventually, answer your questions at the hearings. As introduction of myself and this case I refer to page 130 of the booklet DOCUMENTS & OBSERVATIONS where my speech before The Commission on March 14 1990 is printed.   As a sequel to that speech, I shall give an account of the background to my article: "Let us consider now!", which, strangely enough, has been under consideration at many a tribunal for almost a decade. 

When I, during the first week of December 1983, sat down to write this article I did not do so on the spur of the moment. The problem had "for several years been bothering - if not obsessing - my mind" as may be read on page 18 of  DOCUMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS. A whole decade earlier, in 1973, I had witnessed, in Reykjavík, an incident of completely unmotivated police brutality. I offered to testify on behalf of the victim who had registered a complaint, which he later withdrew, following his attorney's advice that there was nothing to gain and he probably would lose his reputation for life by confronting the Police Force in public. 
  This experience gave me a strong feeling for the vulnerability of the individual in our mini society of 260.000 inhabitants, where anonymity is unthinkable. But from that moment, my attention was on police brutality, and during the years to come I interviewed several dozen victims and relatives of people who had suffered battery by policemen or door-keepers in Reykjavík. In two cases I tried, in vain, to have interviews published in daily papers. I tried to take the same two cases to several attorneys, who all advised against suing members of the Police Force, as the procedure would be according to the Code of Criminal Law, and such cases were sent directly to another police institution, i.e. The State Criminal Investigation Police, for examination. 
  Which seemed to be a blind alley. 

Your Honors! I have been classified as a socially engaged writer with a realistic approach to life. I am old enough to know human nature, and police brutality alone never could have worried me all that much. But the difficulty of having police brutality openly discussed, and moreover the impossibility of having cases examined impartially, bothered me so much that I had tried to contact high ranking persons and make them conscious of this state of affairs ( see my open letter to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Helgason, on page 21 of DOC & OBS ). I quote: "Two of your predecessors in office have received letters from me regarding these problems. Neither of them had the courtesy to answer." 
  Such was the background of my article: "Let us consider now!". My interviews with a number of victims had convinced me that police brutality was a growing problem in Reykjavík. My futile attempts to have these interviews printed in daily newspapers told me that the press had a strong tendency for self censorship on the topic, as they had to depend on Police Headquarters for information on crime, which is "hot selling stuff" on the mark- et. Most attorneys seemed to agree that the judicial system offered no possibilities of an independent, impartial examination of police brutality. And finally: The State obviously had an interest in suppressing discussion on the topic, as the State Treasury was responsible for any damage or injuries demonstratively caused by their Police Forces. The whole situation obviously was a growing threat to public security. 
  My personal contacts within the Reykjavík Police Force were extremely worried about the secret choke holds being taught at the State Police Training College without any concrete rules on their use in daily routine, and with no Committee on Ethics within the Police Force to control cases of abuse. I therefore decided to expose all of this publicly in a signed article, in the widely read newspaper Morgunbladid, since this form of article could not be affected by the paper's unspoken policy on self censorship. And so I did, using the opportunity when Jóns- son's case "all of a sudden came into the spotlight of the press" as may be read on page 18 of DOC & OBS.  The article: "Let us consider now!" was thus the expression of a conviction I had been building up for years by professional journalistic methods, and the printing of it certainly was "from good motives and for justifiable ends." The main purpose of the article is, of course, to urge the Minister of Justice to establish "a committee of trustworthy people to investigate the rumors, gradually becoming public opinion, that brutality is growing within the Reykjavík Police Force and < is > being unfairly protected", as may be read on page 22 of DOC & OBS. I also indicated to the Minister of Justice "that comparatively few individuals are responsible for this negative public opinion", which I had concluded from the fact that, in the aforementioned interviews with victims of the Reykjavík Police Force, the same names of policemen kept coming up in connection with unmotivated brutality. 
  My contacts within the Reykjavík Police Force had worried about their own good reputation being spoiled by the brutal minority, but these very fine people told me that they could do little about things as this brutal minority of policemen was strongly represented on the board of their Association. 
  This vulnerability of even honest policemen was another regrettable fact, difficult to understand and impossible to mention openly without endangering them by uncovering their names, as any other policeman would be able to find out which of his colleagues I knew. This is yet another feature of the mini society we Icelanders live in. To understand this, let us study the description of policeman Steinn Jakob Ólason's behavior given in the Transcript of the Judgment Record of the Reykjavík Criminal Court, printed on page 177 of DOC & OBS. By a neck lock he caused the unconsciousness of a young man, dragged him while unconscious back to the police van  "whereupon he suddenly released his hold with the result that Kaldal's ( the victim's ) face hit the street forcefully. "The victim's face had fallen without any resistance straight down against the street", all according to Alfreð  Alfreðsson's testimony. The young man landed on his face with an impact that could be heard behind a closed window on the other side of the street. Two other policemen then turned away in horror, but the victim "lies motionless in this condition for a considerable period of time with the policemen standing idly by him; then some of them had pushed against him with their feet, as if to check whether he was conscious". 
  Alfeðsson's reliability is, in my mind, exceptional, considering the fact that he is the son of Alfreð Eyjólfsson, a former policeman and one of the teachers at the State Police Training College. This adds an extra weight to his words. Having been sober when he observed the incident he is describing he is a key witness in Judge Benediktsdóttir's investigation, which I have already described as, perhaps, the first objective investigation of police brutality in the history of the Reykjavík Criminal Court (page 192 of DOC & OBS). Alfreðson's description of the incident completely coincides with my analysis of the problem. Reading his testimony I visualize all the factors. The free play of the brute in uniform, allowing the animal within himself to operate, the sad reaction of two honest policemen turning away in resignation, and, finally, the nonchalant attitude of other policemen, pushing against the victim with their feet, as if to verify the result. No active reaction against the savage deed is recorded. I am sorry to say that my conviction about the dangerous threat of police brutality, already existing in 1983 and still in action seven years later, could not have been staged more accurately than reality itself has done "during the night preceding December 27, 1990" as may be read in the Transcript of the Judgment Record on page 177 of the DOC & OBS. 

Your Honors! Allow me to quote the Russian poet Alexander Blok. In a famous poem called: To a young lady, he writes: 
   "Excuse me ... I am a poet, a person who calls everything by its proper name." 
  The poet Alexander Blok is, strangely enough, trying to avoid the tender love of a 15 year old girl by his somewhat harsh poem. In the same right I claim the permission to "call everything by its proper name" in my somewhat harsh article "Let us consider now!", where I am, naturally enough, trying to stop the officially  protected brutal behavior of some members of the Reykjavík Police Force towards the citizens who dare to amuse themselves during the working hours of the Police Force. 
  All the harsh words in my article, which, during various legal proceedings have been singled out and misinterpreted to make them appear dubious and turn them against my reputation, all those words are more than justified if only considered in the context in which they were expressed, i. e. to describe the very concrete threat I had perceived through years of journalistic investigation. Any weaker words would have diluted the reality of what I was exclaiming. Because, even if my article was a desperate cry of warning about police brutality, the fundamental component and the main aim of my article, being an open letter to the Minister of Justice, was my urging him to stop the unfair protection of a public danger. And so he promised in a letter to me, dated January 9 1984, reproduced on page 36 of the DOC & OBS. I quote: "we should like to inform that such problems are now being studied on different levels and the Parliament has the matter on its program in a near future". 
  On January 24, 1984, the Minister spoke in Parliament expressing his personal worries about police brutality but, quoting the report of the Committee on Legal Procedure, had no proposals for an alternative solution. The result was a status quo regarding investigation of cases of police abuse. But the minister reacted anyway, which indicates that he believed in the existence of the problem and its grave nature. And the Public Prosecutor seems to have believed my words, according to the statement in his letter to Mr. Valgeirsson on page 166 in DOC & OBS. I quote: " ... at least a reasonable suspicion of such a conduct, is a prerequisite for initiating such investigation"  And, finally, the Supreme Court confirmed the accuracy of my words, since I was convicted to a minimal fine according to the last sentence of art. 108, indicating "An allegation, even if proven, brings fines if brought forth in an impudent manner." It was their duty, had they believed my words to be untrue, to declare so and sentence me to prison for up to 3 years, according to law. 
  Thus all four official documents: The Supreme Court Judgment in my case, the Judgment Record of The Reykjavík Criminal Court, the letter of the Public Prosecutor, and the letter from the Minister of Justice, seem to  indicate that officials in those institutions were fully conscious of the serious problem of police brutality in Reykjavík. 

Your Honors! As you will have noticed I have sought to corroborate the factual background of my article: "Let us consider now!" with documents issued by state institutions, which from the very beginning have supported the truth of my words, but at the same time they have shown a merciless determination to convict me for telling the truth. I should like to give those institutions credit for their corroboration of truth. However I must disagree with them on the other point and accuse them of violating art. 10 of the Convention, making the obvious truth punishable by methods incompatible with art. 6 and art. 8 of the Convention as well. Allow me to quote the important dissenting opinion of appointed Supreme Court Judge Gaukur Jörundsson ( page 99 of DOC & OBS ) that "there are no conditions to punish the defendant on grounds of art. 108 of the general penal law, which has to be interpreted with regard to the fundamental constitutional right of free expression of opinions in writing and in speech." 

Your Honors! The question might well be put: Why did I not collaborate and forward my often mentioned interviews during the processes to back up my opinions? The answer is simple. I had read police captain Sigurðsson's threat ( reproduced on page 34 of DOC & OBS ) and later realized that members of the Police Force would go as far as to break into computerized files of the City Hospital to seek out someone, who in reality, never had seen me, and make him sign a fraudulent document against my reputation which was later read on television; having realized that the State television had no intention to publish a correction in my favor; and finally; having realized the nature of the judicial system handling the case, I made up my mind to reserve my internationally recognized right to protect my sources. 
  My experiences during the legal proceedings, and up to this date, have convinced me that by refusing to disclose my sources I have saved them from difficult experiences some of which would have caused inseparable personal damages. 
  During the period from December 1983 on, I have experienced the archaic, predemocratic mentality  of  the Icelandic judicial system, and I have also richly experienced the vulnerability of the individual in our mini society. 
  Therefore vulnerability of the individual has been the refrain of this speech of mine. 
  But I do not regret a moment of this hard time.   The nature of individual rights is such that only an individual can fight for them. As described in my documents: Delineation of claims, on pages 198-205 of DOC & OBS, my finances were ruined by the general persecution, organized against me by different state institutions. But only the finances. My social and moral integrity has richly gained by standing up for the fundamental rights of free expression in my country, as I daily feel by reserved, hesitant friendships shown to me by individuals and groups, any time they would not publicly risk too much by their support. Last November the Association of Icelandic Film Makers even elected me as an Honorary Member, in spite of the fact that I have not touched a movie camera for more than a quarter of a century. 
  I make a mention of this only to specify what keeps me going all the time, along with my conviction 
that the future destiny of free expression in my country might depend on my endurance in this very case. 

Your Honors! Reiterating my former claims, with reference to all the material forwarded in my booklet DOCUMENTS & OBSERVATIONS, as well as later filed material, I thank you for your kind attention and submit to your judgment the immediate fate of my right to free expression of opinion in speech and in writing. 
  And, of course, I am ready to answer any further questions. 
 

___________________________________ 
Thorgeir Thorgeirson