A Norwegian court on Monday denied [decision, PDF, in Norwegian] a request by former National Security Agency (NSA) [official website] contractor Edward Snowden [BBC profile] seeking a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US if he were to visit Norway. The Norwegian chapter of PEN International [official websites] awarded Snowden the 2016 Ossietzky Prize [press release] in recognition of his “outstanding efforts for freedom of expression.” Snowden wishes to travel to Oslo in November to receive the prize, but sought assurances from the Norwegian government that he would not be extradited to the US on pending espionage charges [JURIST report] if he were to do so. The Oslo District Court [official website, in Norwegian] denied his request, finding that the Criminal Procedures Act requires that an extradition request be made before it can be assessed on its merits. In addition to Norwegian PEN, the Association of Norwegian Editors, the Norwegian Press Association and the Norwegian Union of Journalists [advocacy websites, in Norwegian] also supported Snowden’s bid for a guarantee of non-extradition.

Snowden, a former NSA contractor and computer professional, became famous in 2013 for leaking classified information. His leak ultimately led to significant revelations about global mass surveillance programs employed by various governments, particularly the US. In October, the European Parliament [official website] voted to approve [JURIST report] a resolution encouraging its member countries not to extradite Snowden, and called upon its member states to drop all criminal charges against him and offer him protection as an “international human rights defender.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] and other US human rights organizations challenged the surveillance by the NSA, although the US District Court for the District of Maryland [official website] dismissed one such case [JURIST report] last October. The question of Snowden’s guilt [JURIST op-ed] and the legitimacy of the charges against him have been debated and analyzed {JURIST news archive] widely in the U.S.