DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17728391
title: PUBLIC RECORD OF STATE ACTIONS AND HUMAN-RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

description: (Preliminary Edition – Lorena Granada Case Archive)**

 

 

1. Purpose of This Record

 

 

This is not an opinion piece.

This is a public register of public actions carried out by public officials in a case that should never have existed.

 

I received a fine of 31,000 NOK — or 22 days in prison — for refusing a PCR test in 2021.

Four years later, in 2025, the Norwegian justice system decided to treat this as a criminal act.

 

This document records the names of the authorities involved, the decisions they made, and the human-rights concerns raised by their actions.

This is not private information. This is public power exercised against a private citizen.

 

 

 

 

2. IDENTIFIED AUTHORITIES AND THEIR DECISIONAL ACTIONS

 

 

 

A. SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY (HØYESTERETT)

 

 

 

Judges:

 

 



Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen

Ragnhild Noer

Erik Thyness


 

 

 

Prosecutor:

 

 



May-Britt Erstad


 

 

Recorded Actions:

 



Rejected the case without genuine reasoning.

Issued a decision that copied the prosecutor’s advisory note verbatim.

Ignored core arguments related to Article 7 (foreseeability of law), Article 6 (fair trial), and Article 8 (bodily integrity).

Contributed to the criminalization of a medical refusal four years after the fact.


 

 

Human-Rights Implications:

 



Potential violation of judicial independence and impartiality.

Possible infringement of fair-trial rights and proportionality.


 

 

 

 

 

B. COURT OF APPEAL – GULATING LAGMANNSRETT

 

 

 

Judges:

 

 



Ellen Eikeseth Mjøs

Carl Petter Martinsen

Eivind Pundsnes


 

 

 

Prosecutor:

 

 



Trond Høvik


 

 

 

Case Handler:

 

 



Jatin Patel


 

 

Recorded Actions:

 



Upheld sanctions despite extreme legal instability (approx. 300 amendments to the COVID regulation).

Ignored documented evidence of discriminatory fines.

Failed to address the four-year prosecution delay.


 

 

Human-Rights Implications:

 



Potential violation of Article 7 (quality and foreseeability of law).

Potential violation of Article 6 (reasonable time requirement).

Concerns of discriminatory enforcement (Article 14).


 

 

 

 

 

C. DISTRICT COURT – HORDALAND TINGRETT

 

 

 

Judge:

 

 



Arild Nundal


 

 

Recorded Actions:

 



Treated a medical refusal as a criminal act.

Accepted the prosecution’s narrative without critical examination.

Failed to address police deletion of video evidence.


 

 

Human-Rights Implications:

 



Possible violation of Article 6 (right to present evidence).

Interference with Article 10 (freedom of expression).

Interference with Article 8 (bodily integrity and private life).


 

 

 

 

 

D. POLICE – VEST POLICE DISTRICT

 

 

 

Police Prosecutors:

 

 



Laila Karin Skeide (Politiadvokat II)

Ole Vallestad Emmerhoff


 

 

Recorded Actions:

 



Pursued criminal charges for a medical refusal.

Participated in the seizure and deletion of video evidence from my phone.

Contributed to a four-year delay without justification.


 

 

Human-Rights Implications:

 



Possible suppression of evidence (Art. 6).

Interference with documentation of public power (Art. 10).

Disproportionate use of prosecutorial authority.


 

 

 

 

 

3. SYSTEMIC VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED

 

 

 

1. Unpredictable and unstable law (Article 7)

 

 

The COVID regulation was amended around 300 times.

No citizen could reasonably foresee what was criminal or not.

 

 

2. Four-year delay in prosecution (Article 6)

 

 

A case concerning a nasal test refusal should not take four years.

This is not “backlog.” This is selective pursuit.

 

 

3. Deletion of video evidence (Articles 6 and 10)

 

 

Police removed evidence documenting the event.

This raises concerns of suppression and obstruction.

 

 

4. Discriminatory fine levels (Article 14)

 

 

Most received 10,000 NOK.

I received 31,000 NOK — over three times more.

 

 

5. Judicial dependence on prosecution

 

 

The Supreme Court’s decision reproduced the prosecutor’s memo word-for-word.

This raises concerns about structural independence.

 

 

6. Bodily integrity violations (Article 8)

 

 

A medical procedure can only be imposed when law is clear, necessary, and proportionate.

None of those conditions were met.

 

 

 

 

4. ARCHIVE ACCESS

 

 

All documents, annexes, evidence, timelines, procedural history, and correspondence are publicly available here:

 

📁 Public Case Archive – Lorena Granada

(insert your Google Drive link)

 

This ensures nothing can be buried, lost, reinterpreted, or quietly dismissed.

 

 

 

 

5. WHY THIS RECORD EXISTS

 

 

These are not private citizens.

These are public officials who used the power of the state to punish a person for a medical refusal.

 

Public power demands public accountability.

 

When institutions fail, citizens must document what happened.

 

History never remembers the officials who signed the papers.

It remembers the person who stood up.

 

You can imprison a body, but you cannot imprison the truth.