I N T E R V I E W S
By Luisa Ballin
The Inter-Parliamentary Union Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians is meeting in closed session from 10 to 13 July 2000 at the IPU Headquarters in Geneva. The Committee is composed of five MPs (from left to right) : Mr Mahinda Samarasinghe (Sri Lanka), Mrs Maria Grazia Daniele Galdi (Italy), Mr François Autain (France, President), Mr Hilarion Etong (Cameroon, Vice-President) and Mr Juan-Pablo Letelier (Chile).
Mr François Autain (France) President
Q.: What are the most frequent human rights violations committed against MPs and what is the IPU doing to assist the victims?
F.A.: As you know, parliamentarians work with words, and occasionally, the words that we utter, especially when we are in the opposition, are not to the taste of the powers that be or the government. In a great many countries, including in my country France, that can be irritating, and there may be a strong temptation to silence the recalcitrant MPs. I would have thought that the type of violation underlying almost all of the cases before the Committee is the violation of freedom of expression. There was the public case of Mr Lim Guan Eng of Malaysia which was before the Committee for several years and which generated considerable ire among the authorities because he had criticised the attorney general for the way in which he had handled a case of rape of a minor. Mr Guan Eng was found guilty of sedition and publication of misleading articles, as a result of which he not only spent one year in prison but was banned from standing for the recent elections. The case of Mr Anwar Ibrahim, former Deputy Primer Minister of Malaysia is another example that was reported on more widely. I would say that today, the methods used to silence opponents are, so to speak, more "politically correct", by which I mean there are fewer assassinations, and the persona non grata tends to disappear less often than in the past. Less contentious methods are chosen such as a trial for defamation or corruption which are affairs which can be fairly easily cooked up. In some countries, there are even trials for attempted coups d'Etat. For the technique to succeed, another fundamental right comes under attack: the right to fair trial.
The IPU Committee was established precisely to provide assistance to parliamentarians who consider themselves the victims of arbitrary treatment. We act as intermediaries between the complainants and the authorities of the countries concerned and try to use dialogue and cooperation to reach a settlement in keeping with international human rights standards. I might add that the work done by the Union to bolster the parliamentary institution as such certainly also contributes to ensuring greater respect for parliaments and their members.
Q.: The Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians conducts on-site missions. What is the purpose of these missions?
F.A.: As a general rule, the Committee carries out an on-site mission, as in the recent cases of Guinea and Belarus, when there is considerable discrepancy between the information submitted by the complainants and the authorities, making it difficult to assess the facts. We then send a delegation to the country in order to gather from all parties concerned - the authorities and the presumed victims, as well as their families and lawyers - all the information necessary for an impartial and objective review of the situation. These missions are a very valuable tool because they make it possible to weigh up the facts in all their complexity. They are also significant for the parliamentarians concerned, who are often detained, and their relatives, because they prove that they are not forgotten.
M. Mahinda Samarasinghe (Sri Lanka)
Q: What are the cases the Committee is dealing with in your region?
M.S. : "Public cases dealt with the Asia/Pacific region involve such categories as political victimization, restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, arbitrary arrest and detention and cases of intimidation and assault of political opponents. They are the consequence of blatant violations and disregard to the rule of law, international human rights instruments and standards, and disrespect for universal democratic values. The most blatant case is without any doubt the case of the MPs elected in Myanmar in 1990 who have so far been prevented by the military regime from exercising their parliamentary mandate, thus depriving the people of Myanmar of their right, as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to participate in the conduct of public affairs.
Those public cases which have continued to be before the Committee, despite efforts on the part of the Committee to engage in constructive dialogue with a view towards settling them, have mostly been a result of scant regard for international opinion and the desire to consolidate power bases by subjugating legitimate political opposition.
Mr Juan Pablo Letelier (Chile)
Q: What are the public cases examined in Latin America?
J.-P.L.: The majority of the cases which the Committee is now examining in Latin America touch upon the problem of impunity. For example, in Colombia, the Committee has been examining for several years the case of six members of the opposition who were assassinated in the years 1986 to 1994. Only in one case have the murderers been identified and a judgment been handed down; all the other cases have remained unpunished so far. Our Committee has consistently stressed the danger which impunity represents for democracy as it encourages the repetition of crime and results in increased violence.
Fortunately, political systems in Latin America have developed in the right direction. The democratisation of the continent has also greatly improved the cooperation between the authorities and our Committee. It would be practically inconceivable today for a country to refuse dialogue, as was the case during the military dictatorship in Chile, for example, when a great number of cases of disappeared members of parliament was referred to the Committee. One of the main effects of this democratisation is, by the way, that the risk of such massive human rights violations being perpetrated in the future is lessened.
Mrs Maria Grazia Daniele Galdi (Italy)
Q: What kind of cases before the IPU Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians concern Europe, the region which you represent?
M.G.D.G.: The Committee is looking closely at the public cases concerning the situation of Mrs Leyla Zana and her colleagues, former Turkish MPs of Kurdish origin, and at the situation of several members of the 13th Supreme Soviet in Belarus which was dissolved following the 1996 referendum whcih was launched at the initiative of President Lukashenko. IPU also conducted a mission to Minsk, the report of which was submitted to the IPU Council (governing body), at the 103rd Conference in Amman last April. Italy's parliamentarians are also keeping a close watch on the predicament of their fellow MPs in prison in Turkey. I am personally responsible for collecting signatures from Italian MPs to support the appeal on behalf of Burmese parliamentarians elected in 1990 who were prevented by the military regime from taking their seats and fulfiling their parliamentary mandates.
A few figures
At its 90th session, the Committee members will examine 42 cases concerning 180 parliamentarians in 24 countries and 18 public cases concerning 133 parliamentarians in the following 15 countries: Argentina, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gambia, Guinea, Honduras, Malaysia, Myanmar, Republic of Moldova, Sri Lanka and Turkey. The Committee will also examine a series of cases dealt with under its confidential procedure. At present, there are a total of 179 parliaments and some 42,000 parliamentarians worldwide.
The Committee in brief
The Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians was established in 1976 and meets four times a year in closed session (twice at the IPU Headquarters and twice during inter-parliamentary conferences). It is composed of five MPs, all elected to the parliament of their respective countries and each representing a region. It may conduct hearings and undertake on-site missions. Acting as an intermediary between the complainants and the authorities of the country concerned, it takes action to bring to an end, as expeditiously as possible, any arbitrary measure to which a parliamentarian may be subjected, to ensure his or her protection, and - where appropriate - to seek compensation. The Committee reports to the IPU Council at its spring and autumn meetings.
Africa: specific cases
Mr Hilarion Etong is Vice-President of the IPU Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians and Deputy at the Cameroon National Assembly.
Q: What kind of cases before the IPU Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians concern Africa, the region which you represent?
H.E.: The Committee does not look at human rights cases in general because it is only empowered to review cases before it concerning parliamentarians (deputies and senators). The Committee examines cases of violations of Parliamentarians' right to life (the case of several FRODEBU Deputies in Burundi who were killed after the legislative elections in 1993).
The Committee also discusses violations of the right to freedom of expression, of opinion, of thought and the right to participate in public affairs, or the right to membership of a political party (the case of Mr Jallow, a former member of the National Assembly of Gambia.) We also look at the right to stand for election, as in the case of Messrs. Barreh, Houmed and Farrah of Djibouti, who were prevented from standing in Djibouti in 1997. We also review cases of suspension or revocation of the parliamentary mandate. The Committee also studies violations of freedom of movement, as in the case where certain Djibouti Deputies had their passports confiscated, or the case of Mr Lamin waa Juwara in Gambia. The Committee is also attentive to questions concerning the violation of parliamentary immunities. There are, for example, cases of arrest and arbitrary detention of parliamentarians of Guinea (Messrs. Alpha Condé, Boye Ba, Mamadou Barry and others) without any prior legal lifting of their immunity, by using the questionable procedure of flagrante delictu. There are also violations of the right to a free and fair trial before an independent and impartial court, and of the requisite that offences and sentences be grounded in law, a problem which applies to the accusations levelled against Mr Alpha Condé in Guinea.
Q: Does the work of the Committee have any specific repercussions?
H.E.: The monitoring function of the Committee is useful because the scale of violations of the human rights of parliamentarians is diminishing, not in a spectacular fashion, but diminishing nonetheless. There are no typical abuses, for they tend to change depending on how the cases before the Committee are handled and how the countries that are in the dock respond. For example, in Tunisia, the MP Mr Chammari was freed and his passport was returned to him. In Chad, Mr Yorongar Ngarlejy was freed and paid his parliamentary stipend. In Togo, compensation was paid to the families of Messrs Atidere, Tavio, and Edeh who were murdered.
Overall, we should not forget that some countries in the African region remain untouched by this blight, in so far as the statistics do not reveal any known instances of violation of MPs' human rights in South Africa, Gabon, Senegal, Namibia or, for that matter, Cameroon, and there are doubtless others that I have omitted. As Vice-President of this Committee and as a Cameroonian and African parliamentarian, I can only applaud this fact. |