6.  The applicant is a Chilean national who was born in 1968 and lives in Bergen, Norway. He has worked inter alia as a kindergarten assistant for about 8 years. 7.  The applicant has two sons L. and A. (born respectively on 11 June 1994 and 24 February 1996) with Ms H.T., a Norwegian national, with whom he entered into a relationship in 1992/1993 and cohabited from mid 1994 until the end of that year. In 1995 (before A. was born) the applicant and H.T. reached an agreement whereby he had certain access rights to L. 8.  Since around 1997 he has cohabited with Ms G.A.D. and her adolescent son. 9.  A dispute arose as to the applicant's access to L. and A. On 9 June 1997 H.T. reported him to the police for allegedly having sexually abused L. She based her allegations on statements made by L. The mother gave statements to the police and L. was interviewed by a judge without anything significant emerging in the case. In July 1998 the State Prosecutor discontinued the investigation, which decision the Director of Public Prosecutions confirmed on appeal in October 1998. 10.  In the year 2000 the applicant brought judicial proceedings before the Bergen City Court (byrett), claiming a right of access to his two sons (sections 44 and 44A of the Children Act 1981). On 7 December 2000 the City Court refused a request by H.T. to have an expert witness appointed. 11. By a judgment of 18 April 2001 the City Court granted the applicant access every other week-end and for approximately half of the holiday periods and devised a plan for stepping up access. To give the above immediate effect, the City Court issued an interlocutory order.
In reaching the above conclusions, the City Court rejected the accusations made by the boys' mother that the applicant had sexually abused L. It observed that according to H.T. there were only 10 occasions on which the applicant had been on his own with his son, namely in that they had been in a room with the door shut in H.T.'s apartment. In her view it was most probable that the abuse had occurred on these occasions, though she did not have concrete evidence to this effect. The City Court found it excluded on the evidence before it that the applicant had sexually abused L. It attached decisive weight to the fact that the applicant's access to his son had taken place each time under the supervision of at least one other person and that on the 10 occasions on which he and the son had been on their own in the latter's room, it was for a very short time and in a situation where the child's mother could have entered the room at any moment. The visits in question took place more than a year and a half ago - a very long period for a small child - before April 1997 when the son had made the statements that aroused the mother's suspicions that the applicant had sexually abused L. Finally, the City Court had regard to the fact that the physiological and psychiatric examinations carried out did not support the allegation that abuse had occurred. It found that the allegation had been the result of manipulation and fabrication by the mother as part of a strategy to obstruct the applicant's access. There was reason to assume that this had already had damaging effects on L., who had stated that he did not wish to live or to be with his father. The boy had become a go-between in a conflict between adults. The City Court stated that the applicant was more suitable than the mother to assume the daily care. 12.  On 10 October 2001 H.T.'s lawyer lodged a disciplinary complaint against the judge who had heard the case before the City Court for having acted with prejudice against his client in expressing distrust and treating her with disrespect during her testimony. The judge was imposed a mild reprimand by the Ministry of Justice, which found that there were grounds for criticising his conduct of the proceedings. 13.  H.T. appealed against the City Court's judgment and interlocutory injunction to Gulating High Court (lagmannsrett), requesting in the main that the applicant be refused a right of access to the children. She referred inter alia to the fact that the court appointed expert considered that L's strong negative attitude to his father was consistent with abuse having taken place. The applicant, denying that any abuse had occurred, requested the High Court to reject her appeal. 14.  By a judgment of 27 September 2002, the High Court overturned the City Court's judgment and refused the applicant access to his two sons, inter alia after obtaining an expert report from a court appointed psychologist, dated 2 September 2002, and hearing evidence from the latter. It also had regard to a report of 11 September 2001 by a psychologist who had been counselling the boy at the mother's initiative and the psychologist's oral evidence to the court. 15.  The High Court noted that from the psychologist's report of 2 September 2002 it emerged that the boy had felt great anxiety about the idea of meeting his father (he would kill himself rather than see his father); L. was unable to describe the reasons but his statements seemed founded on actual experience. Any access should be established gradually. Forcing the boy to have contact would be psychologically damaging. 16.  The High Court observed that the applicant and L. met 23 times in 1996, 8 times in both 1997 and 1998, 3 times in 1999 and that no access had taken place during the last three years (since 11 August 1999). It did not consider that the mother had sabotaged access although it understood that the fact that access had to take place under supervision by her sister or her father had made it difficult for the applicant to exercise access. 17.  The High Court's judgment included the following reasoning:
“Two arguments have been made against the father being granted a right of access.
Firstly, it is argued that the father has subjected [L.] to sexual assault. There is a complaint to the police dated 9 June 1997 from which it appears that an investigation of the case was initiated. The mother made statements to the police on 17 June and 18 December 1997, and there was also an interview of [L.] by a judge without anything of significance for the case coming to light. According to information presented, the case was dropped by the public prosecutor. This decision was appealed to the Director of Public Prosecutions on 22 October 1998 but the public prosecutor's decision was not reversed. The fact that there was insufficient evidence in the criminal case is, however, not decisive in this case, see Rt ([Norsk Retstidende (Supreme Court Reports)]-1989-320. It is further assumed that in a case involving minor children, no risk whatsoever may be taken in such circumstances, also concerning the issue of access rights, see Rt – 1994-940. In view of the information available in the case, where quite detailed descriptions have been provided of the abuse, together with [L.]'s strong objections to seeing his father, the High Court finds that there are many elements that may indicate that abuse has occurred. The High Court has nevertheless not found it necessary for its decision to go further into or take a stance on this.
Secondly, it is contended that the implementation of access rights vis-à-vis the father is impossible in view of the fact that [L.] is opposed to this. In light of the information available, the High Court assumes that [L.] is opposed to having access to his father, which is to be accorded weight pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act. Nevertheless, the implementation of access may not, in principle, be made dependent on the child not being opposed to being with his father. This question will depend on the concrete circumstances.
...
According to the report, the boy is unable to describe why he has such great anxiety about meeting his father. [Psychologist O.] considers the information he has obtained to be an expression of the boy's actual experiences. The report further states that if contact between the father and the boy is to be established, this must take place gradually over a longer period of time and in such a manner that [the child welfare services] can constantly monitor how this develops. If [L.] 's strong anxiety is maintained, forced contact is at present deemed to constitute a psychological assault on the boy, according to the report. [Psychologist O.] has given testimony before the High Court, which in its essentials concords with the aforementioned report. According to [Psychologist O.], [L.] has stated that he would not visit his father even in the presence of a third party, his mother or someone else.
In his report, the expert states inter alia the following:
'On the whole [L.] has a good level of functioning, though everything having to do with his father is an obviously vulnerable and difficult point for him. My own impression from an interview with [L.] accords well with what [Psychologist O.] has described. [L.] indicates with his entire being both in the interview and afterwards that this is a very uncomfortable and difficult topic.'
The expert evaluated three alternative resolutions for the access issue. The first alternative is an ordinary access arrangement between the father and the boys. The expert concluded that it is both impossible and indefensible to go straight to such an arrangement. He refers to the fact that [L.] 's aversion and emotional reactions to contact with his father are so strong that such an arrangement could not be started without strong physical coercive measures. Furthermore, he refers to the fact that [L.] has made serious threats about what he would do, namely take his own life. The expert also pointed to the strain this would inflict on [L.] and that this may jeopardise his further development. This would, in addition, inflict substantial strains on the mother. As the second alternative the expert considered a limited access arrangement, with supervision, possibly with the aim of increasing it to ordinary access. The expert pointed out that such a process may involve relatively high human (and financial) costs and that it would be a stressful process for [L.] and the rest of the family. Furthermore, it was noted that the outcome may be uncertain, since neither the mother nor [L.] will, at the outset, be very motivated to attaining concrete results in the form of contact with the father. The expert concluded that this is a possibility, but that it would require support by both parties and having sufficient resources in and around the family at their disposal. He also pointed out that the chances of failing abysmally would be present. The third alternative considered is no access at all between the father and the boys. To justify such a solution, the expert referred to the necessity of safeguarding the good progress the boys are making and of sparing them, especially [L.], from further uncertainty and conflicts connected with the issue of access.
The expert did not reach any unambiguous conclusion in his report, except from finding that an ordinary access arrangement appears to be quite impossible to implement. As far as the other alternatives are concerned, he has kept the options more open. In his testimony before the court and after having been present during the appeal hearing, the expert expressed the view that he strongly favours that there should be no access between the father and the boys. In addition to [L.]'s clearly expressed unwillingness to have access to his father, the expert referred to the difficult situation that the family and [L.] in particular have been in over several years. He further referred to the fact that the mother was the sole provider for the children, and that she and the family had reached their 'limit of tolerance'. It is also the understanding of the High Court that the expert deems the costs of a supervised arrangement to be too high and the benefits to be too uncertain for the expert to have been able to recommend access under supervision as an alternative.
The High Court agrees that an ordinary access arrangement would not be an acceptable alternative, but has evaluated in particular whether an arrangement with supervised access would be possible. Like the expert, the High Court has concluded that such an arrangement would be disproportionately demanding and that it presumably may be difficult to find persons with the necessary competence who are willing to subject themselves to such a time consuming process as is in question here. The High Court also agrees with the expert that the strain that such a process will necessarily inflict on the family must also be considered, especially since the mother has sole care of the children. On the basis of its impressions during the hearing, the High Court agrees with the expert that the 'tolerance limit' for whatever additional strains that can be inflicted appears to have been reached. Even if neither the [Psychologist O.] nor the expert appears to have been able to clarify the reasons for [L.] 's strong objections to having contact with his father, this must, on the basis of the circumstances of the case, be accorded substantial weight in the decision. In view of this, there would in the view of the High Court be an not unappreciable risk that the boy's development may be directly jeopardised by having to go through such a process that is under discussion here. In addition, considerable flexibility would be required of both parties, which, on the basis of the High Court's impressions from the hearing, is uncertain, on the part of the mother, but especially on the part of the father.
Despite the fact that ..., a refusal to grant access may be justified only in very special circumstances, the High Court has concluded that there should be no access in this case since, on the basis of an overall assessment, this would not be in the best interest of the children. Even though the issue of access is at the outset to be considered separately with regard to each of the boys and even though it is assumed that [A.] does not have the same antagonistic relationship to his father as [L.], the High Court finds no reason to grant access with regard to [A.] as well. As the High Court understands the expert, it would cause unpleasant tensions within the family if only one of the children were to have access and that such an arrangement was not advisable, something with which the High Court agrees. Given the strains that the family has been under over several years, in the High Court's view, it is now important that peace prevails in this matter.
Having reached this conclusion, the High Court does not find it necessary to establish a provisional arrangement in respect of the access issue.” 18.  The High Court Judgment contained the following unanimous conclusion regarding the substantive questions:
“[The applicant] is not granted a right of access to [L.], born on *,*, 1994, and [A.], born on *,*, 1996. “ 19.  The applicant appealed against the High Court's judgment as a whole, asking primarily that it be quashed and in the alternative that he be granted a right of access to his children. He challenged the High Court's procedure, namely its omission to deal with the interim order by the City Court.
He moreover appealed against the High Court's assessment of the evidence, notably its reasoning regarding the allegations on sexual abuse, including the following passage, which in his view was “curious”.
“In view of the information available in the case, where quite detailed descriptions have been provided of the abuse, together with [L.'s] strong objections to seeing his father, the High Court finds that there are many elements that may indicate that abuse has occurred. The High Court has nevertheless not found it necessary for its decision to go further into or take a stance on this.”
The applicant submitted that in the light of the evidence it was hard to understand the High Court's conclusion on sexual abuse, even more so when it was stated in the judgment that it “has not found it necessary for its decision to go further into or take a stance on this”. In the applicant's view, this was obviously an error; should a judge find that there were many elements to indicate that sexual abuse had occurred, it was evident that this conviction would also have an effect on a decision regarding access for the parent found to be a probable abuser. The applicant further disputed the lawfulness of the High Court's rejection of any access rights, which decision could not be reconciled with the rule that the best interests of the child should prevail. In the applicant's view, L's horror picture of his father should be removed by arranging for access. This was a clear case of the so-called Parental Alienation Syndrome, with clear hatred, fear and anxiety, unlike the ambivalence shown by children who have been exposed to actual abuse. 20.  On 20 December 2002, the Appeals Selection Committee of the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. 21.  The applicant has submitted a medical certificate dated 7 June 2003 by Dr R.K., which stated:
“I the undersigned have known [the applicant] since December 2000.
He has had a very tough time psychologically during the period since the judgment. He feels that he has been unjustifiably held liable of sexual abuse against his son and feels powerless in the system. He has been very depressed lately. He is struggling with problems of sleeplessness, bad appetite and loss of weight. He is isolating himself. At times he has had suicidal thoughts. This has adversely affected his family life and members of his family have had a particularly difficult time during the past six months.” 22.  The applicant has moreover filed a statement by Dr H.V., Psychiatrist, of 4 September 2006, which concludes:
“It is highly probable that [the applicant] has developed symptoms that are compatible with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after what he had experienced in Chile. This has been further fortified by a situation combining anxiety and depression in the form of an adaptation disturbance as a result of his fight to get access to his children, especially when the court deprived him of his right of access.
He presents a relatively high level of pressure from suffering but which he nevertheless manages to master satisfactorily. He receives regular treatment by a psychologist and medical treatment.”