Many strong impressions are expected through the two-month-long terror trial, which starts in the Oslo district court on Tuesday morning. Although the perpetrator is already behind bars, there are several unanswered questions. In short, one can say that the judges must answer three main questions: What was the motive behind the shooting? Was Matapour sane when he shot? And what was the role of the National Intelligence Service in the run-up to the shooting? The prosecution believes the terrorist act had an Islamist motive and was aimed at the queer community. Therefore, the case is also historic. It is the first time that the law’s wording on serious terrorism has been used. Matapour risks 30 years in prison or detention if he is convicted. The terrorist defendant himself has been silent for a year and a half. He has refused to speak to the police. There is also no reason to believe that he will explain himself in court. Therefore, we know little about what Matapour himself thinks about what he has done, or why he did it. The question of Matapour’s sanity will also be a topic in the courtroom. The court-appointed experts disagree about his mental state when the shots were fired. Thus, this question also ends up on the court’s table. If the judges have doubts about his sanity, the outcome may be that he is sentenced to compulsory mental health care. In that case, he must be treated in the healthcare system. Then the stay behind closed doors can be much shorter. The defense will, for its part, argue that we know too little for Matapour to be convicted at all. Lawyer Marius Dietrichson has made it clear that he wants to get to the bottom of the Intelligence Service’s role. In particular, it concerns the use of a secret agent, and the agent’s communication with co-accused Aisha Shezadi Kausar. The two had a very extensive message dialogue in the days and weeks before the attack. The agent was probably a person who was recruited by the Norwegian Intelligence Service on the ground in Syria, and brought to Norway for training. Thereafter, it was the person’s responsibility to nurture contact with the Islamist in the al-Roj camp. The preliminary review of the case has shown that this contact was very extensive, and the two exchanged a number of messages via the Telegram service. The whole thing was controlled by the National Intelligence Service’s own source managers. They regularly met with the agent and gave instructions on what to do. Dietrichson has demanded that all source drivers testify in court. There is little indication that he will succeed. The service does everything it can to protect its agents and working methods. In all likelihood, the 108 reports from the source managers’ meetings with the agent will also remain classified. Nor are any audio recordings from the meetings shared with the parties in the case. And this is where Dietrichson believes he has a point. The lawyer believes that it cannot be ruled out that the E-service agent influenced Aisha Shezadi Kausar, and in that way contributed to the terrorist attack actually occurring. It may seem like a straw, but it could end up with the defender submitting a claim for acquittal for his client. The background is the Criminal Code, which states that a defendant cannot be convicted if the authorities have provoked the person in question’s actions. Whether the court will listen to such arguments in this case is rather doubtful. But there is some case law in this area. Among other things from the “Hunger case”, which ended in failure for the prosecution. Dietrichson also wants Aisha Kausar to testify from the al-Roj camp in Syria. The Norwegian authorities have not heard from her since she was charged with complicity in the terrorist attack. And it is probably doubtful whether the prosecution will find any way to subpoena her. Arfan Bhatti is also on the witness list, but he is still in Pakistan. If he is not extradited from there, that certificate also hangs in the balance. Then it remains to be seen what other evidence the public prosecutors have. It is clear that the police and prosecution believe that the terror was a well-planned attack staged by a group of extreme Islamists. Then it is a bit special that only the shooter sits on the dock this time. The indictment against Zaniar Matapour is for aggravated terrorism. It must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt if he is to be sentenced to the law’s most severe punishment. It remains to be seen whether the judges will get all the answers they need to make such a ruling. news’s crime commentator, Olav Rønneberg, was an eyewitness to the shooting in central Oslo. He was there as a private person and immediately called the police emergency number to notify. He has no relation to any of the victims or others involved.
ttn-69
Many unanswered questions – Statement
