Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

In exploring how victim representation and compensation impact collective recovery after terror attacks, Sandvik, Ikdahl, and Lohne (2021) have argued that legal responses are also memorial practices—sites where society negotiates its identity after trauma. Terrorism trials are about whose suffering counts, whose voice is heard, and how democratic societies reckon with violence.

Bureaucracy as Gatekeeper

Victim compensation in Norway operates through a layered model: damages from the perpetrator, insurance payments, and ultimately, state compensation. The latter is meant as a last-resort mechanism—available only if the first two avenues fail. Under the 2023 Act relating to compensation for violent crime, terrorism is clearly included. But eligibility requires more than just being harmed. It hinges on the coding of the victim status during police investigations—a decision with a weak basis in procedural law, yet one that can make or break a compensation claim. If a victim is not formally coded as such—using a penal procedural identifier—they may be excluded from state compensation altogether, regardless of the harm endured.

Utøya 22nd of July 2011 VS Pride 2022 25th of June

The 2011 Utøya attacks marked a watershed moment for the Norwegian legal system. With 77 people killed and hundreds more affected, the scope of victimhood was vast. Over 490 individuals and families were appointed victim lawyers, a legal innovation allowing them to participate more fully in the proceedings, including observing the trial, providing input, and pursuing civil claims. The trial not only tested the limits of the victim lawyer model—it validated it. Legal scholars note that victim lawyers occupy a unique space within the legal field (Bourdieu, as cited in Antonsdóttir & Laugerud, 2024), often seen as peripheral compared to prosecutors or defense attorneys. But in terrorism trials, they became crucial interpreters of suffering and guardians of procedural dignity.

The 2022 Oslo Pride attack presented a very different procedural landscape. While fewer lives were lost, the administrative and prosecutorial handling of the case showed the fragility of victim rights when legal categories shift mid-process. During the trial observed in spring 2024, the term “dynamic number of aggrieved parties” emerged—an acknowledgment that the number of recognized victims was still growing after the trial began. Police testimony indicated that victims were still being identified months into proceedings. This fluidity is troubling in a legal system that relies on fixed procedural stages to trigger victim rights and compensation eligibility. This procedural uncertainty translated into practical harm: the Office for Compensation to Victims of Violent Crime routinely deferred to police coding practices rather than evaluating claims on merit. Victims whose suffering was real—but not yet “coded”—were effectively invisible to the state.

Procedural Priorities and Prosecutorial Focus

Terrorism trials are, by necessity, focused on the offender. Prosecutors build forward-looking narratives, often portraying attacks as foreshadowing future violence—what legal scholar Charlotte Squires (2024) calls the “anticipation of catastrophic futures”. In such narratives, past harm becomes a stage-setting device, not the center of legal concern. This orientation can sideline victim experiences, especially in complex cases with a large number of aggrieved parties. Ironically, the scale of suffering—what one might expect to produce greater attention—can result in a reversed economy of scale: the more victims there are, the less attention any one receives. This procedural minimalism isn’t unique to Norway. But it challenges core Nordic legal values that emphasize restorative principles, state responsibility, and victim dignity.

Redefining Legal Participation Versus Legal Retraction in Real Time

The legal responses to Utøya and the Oslo Pride attack illustrate both evolution and retreat in victim rights. While the victim lawyer model has expanded, legal recognition still depends on administrative coding and investigative thoroughness. And while compensation frameworks exist, their implementation reveals friction between bureaucratic formality and lived experience: Even with robust institutions, victim recognition is not guaranteed—it must be continually demanded, defended, and defined.

References

Antonsdóttir, H. F., & Laugerud, S. (2024). The Norwegian Victim Lawyer in a Nordic Context: Professional Boundaries, Legal Hierarchies and Purification Processes. International Criminology, 4(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43576-024-00070-w

Sandvik, K. B., Ikdahl, I., & Lohne, K. (2021). Rettens rolle etter 22. juli: Minnearbeid, overlevende og gjenoppbygging. Norsk sosiologisk tidsskrift, 5(3), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2535-2512-2021-03-03

Squires, C. (2024). Putting Legal Research on Trial. Perspectives on Terrorism, 18(4), 44–64. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/research-output/governance-and-global-affairs/putting-legal-research-on-trial

About the author: