Règle correspondante
Norway
Practice Relating to Rule 90. Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … [and in] the two additional protocols to these Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108.
Norway’s Penal Code (1902), as amended in 2008, states:
Any person is liable to punishment for a war crime who in connection with an armed conflict:
(b) inflicts on a protected person great suffering or serious injury to body or health, particularly by torture or other cruel or inhuman treatment,
(j) grossly violates the dignity of a protected person by subjecting that person to humiliating or degrading treatment/commits outrages upon the dignity of a protected person, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment. 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 103(b) and (j).
The Penal Code further states: “A protected person is a person who does not take, or who no longer takes, active part in hostilities, or who is otherwise protected under international law.” 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 103.
In its judgment in the Bruns case in 1946, the Court of Appeal found the accused, German police officials, guilty of having tortured civilians during the belligerent occupation of Norway by Germany. The Court found that the accused employed means of interrogation amounting to torture, performing atrocious acts to extort from victims information which could subsequently be used for the purpose of punishing other persons. 
Norway, Court of Appeal, Bruns case, Judgment, 20 March 1946.
In its judgment in the Repak case in 2008, concerning crimes committed against civilian non-combatant Serbs in an internment camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992, resulting from which the defendant was convicted on 11 counts of the war crime of unlawfully confining a protected person, the District Court of Oslo held:
199. The Court finds it has been proved that the defendant participated in the arrest of DD and [his] transport to Dretelj [internment camp], and that the defendant interrogated him once. During the interrogation headed by the defendant, DD was tortured by the use of a needle until he wrote down the list of Serbs in Caplinja. The defendant himself did not commit any acts of violence against him, but he did not prevent the multiple needle insertions under DD’s nails in connection with the interrogation that was headed by the defendant. …
245. The Court finds it has been proved that the defendant interrogated her [AA – a female civilian non-combatant] twice; during the first interview that was headed by the defendant she was subjected to various kinds of torture as described above, including blows to her hands and body, and needle-pricks under her nails. The defendant himself hit her once with an open hand in the face. …
253. … [I]in fixing the sentence the Court can as an aggravating circumstance attach importance to the torture as part of the defendant’s complicity in the deprivation of AA’s liberty …
258. The defendant has been found guilty of eleven counts of war crime in the form of deprivation of liberty of civilian non-combatant Serbs with subsequent internment in the Dretelj camp. The internment lasted substantially longer than one month and/or the detainees were subjected to abnormal suffering. As regards violence and/or torture of particular importance for the sentencing, the defendant is linked directly to two instances in connection with interrogations headed by him.
263. A significant aggravating circumstance is the torture to which AA was subjected during the interrogation in Dretelj that the defendant was in charge of. He personally gave her a slap in the face, but the Court finds that he as the one in charge of the interrogation must bear the main responsibility for all violence taking place during the interrogation, which amongst other things included several blows with a baton, scratching with a knife, needle insertions under her nails and undressing. 
Norway, District Court of Oslo, Repak case, Judgment, 2 December 2008, §§ 199, 245, 253, 258 and 263.