A newly released report by the Baneheia Committee has asserted that the controversial Baneheia case, which involves the tragic murder of two young girls in Norway, should have been reopened in 2011. The committee, led by Jon Petter Rui, highlighted that the Review Commission failed to adequately investigate the significance of DNA evidence presented in various reports. This failure was notably apparent in the commission's decisions made in 2011, which largely lacked independent evaluations of new findings that came to light, with a more in-depth analysis only occurring a decade later in 2021.

The report raises critical concerns about the Review Commission's adherence to its investigative duties, particularly regarding strong evidence pushing for a review of the case. It notes that there were multiple requests for a new examination of the key evidence made by the defense of Viggo Kristiansen, the individual convicted in the case. The findings suggest systemic flaws within the Review Commission itself, asserting that not only was the DNA evidence inadequately assessed, but also other key pieces of evidence were overlooked, raising questions about the integrity of the original investigation.

Moreover, the committee has criticized the Norwegian Forensic Medical Commission for making statements that exceeded their role as quality assessors in this case. It underscores the need for greater scrutiny and accuracy in reviewing past convictions, especially in cases involving serious allegations like murder. The implications of this report extend beyond the Baneheia case itself, as it highlights crucial issues related to judicial accountability and the importance of revisiting potentially wrongful convictions, a topic that resonates deeply in the broader context of criminal justice reform in Norway.