No redress, no compensation, no reconciliation

Describing a beating at Maafushi Jail, musician Abdulla Easa said: “Sometimes I felt I was floating, suspended in mid air, going from one officer’s boots to the other.”

Easa was tortured simply for refusing to stand in queue for flatbread.

Prisoner testimonies indicate torture and ill treatment has been widespread and systematic in Maldivian jails.

Officers tortured inmates “just for fun,” said Easa. “For example, when they went out for a swim, they would call out to anyone they liked, “you come.” They would make us kneel down, they would bury you half in the sand, burn you with cigarettes.”

Former journalist Abdulla ‘Fahala’ Saeed, said he saw security officers rip both the clothes and the skin off of one man when they pulled him out after burying him in the sand.

“One morning, a person named ‘Kelaa’ Areef was taken to the beach and half buried in the sand so he could not move at all. At some time he started reciting the Shahadha, saying that he was going to die, then one of the officers said, ‘He is now ‘dhonvefa’ [heated up] Time to take him out’.”

Then two of them held him under his arms and pulled him out, ripping off his clothes and ripping his skin [on sharp coral sand]. He was all bloody. He was unconscious. Then they threw him in the cell.”

Both Easa and Saeed have claimed they saw people die in jail from the torture they receieved.

No redress

But to date, no survivors or families of victims in the Maldives have received any redress or compensation, and there has been no effort at reconciliation at the national level.

Ten years have passed since the Maldives signed the UN Convention Against Torture.

The Torture Victims Association say survivors have no confidence in a “politicised and incompetent judiciary” and are waiting on judicial reform to pursue justice.

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) member Jeehan Mahmoud said difficulties in substantiating claims of torture and a state tendency to protect the accused over the victim have constrained efforts at redress.

However, the recently ratified Anti Torture Act – which heavily penalises torture and assures compensation for victims – is a “big encouragement” to end such practices, she said.

Proving that an individual officer committed acts of torture beyond reasonable doubt may be difficult, but state institutions must he held accountable, Jeehan said, adding that the Maldives needs a reconciliation effort to end a culture of impunity and ensure non recurrence.

No confidence

The TVA has collected 125 statements of torture, and submitted 25 cases to the HRCM on February 6, 2012 – the day before the controversial resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed, himself a well-publicised victim of torture during his time as a pro-democracy activist.

President of TVA Ahmed Naseem said survivors do not believe they will get justice with the present judiciary.

“After all they went through, all the humiliation they suffered, if the courts say this is nonsense, then they will be in a worse situation than before. They will go nuts. We cannot take chances. We cannot afford to humiliate them,” said Naseem.

“People still have nightmares, people’s lives have been destroyed, families have been broken. We cannot let these people down. So we have to wait,” he added.

Naseem suggested enough evidence existed to hold state institutions accountable. The former National Security Services had a punishment book or ‘Adhabu Foi’ which contained details of state sanctioned torture, he said.

But with the return of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s party to power, there is no longer any political will to address the past, Naseem said. “The culprits are in government now.”

Vice President Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, during a UN Human Rights Council in 2012, admitted to a history of torture, but said: “As a government we believe we have an independent judiciary. We leave it to the victims to invoke these instances before a court of law.”

The government cannot afford compensation for victims, said Dr Jameel – then Home Minister.

The UNHRC has urged the Maldives to set up an Independent Commission of Inquiry to conduct criminal investigations and ensure compensation for all victims of torture.

In defense of the accused

The Maldives Police Services is the only institution in the country with a forensics laboratory, but the HRCM is unable to use forensics services when the police is the institution that stands accused of torture, Jeehan said.

The state hires and pays lawyer fees on behalf of the accused, and refuses to take disciplinary measures such as suspension until investigations are complete.

“The system does not work to protect the victim. Even simple steps, such as suspending the accused until investigations are complete could show the government’s commitment to end torture and brutality.”

The state’s defense of the accused deters witnesses from the accused institution from coming forward, Jeehan continued.

“They are not protected from bullying within the institution either. Documents are lost – and witness statements by all officers match up word to word. The only evidence then are the statements by civilians who saw brutality. With this imbalance, getting redress is a difficult task.”

Former Police Integrity Commission (PIC) President Shahindha Ismail has also said the Maldives Police Services tends to protect its employees when they are accused of brutality.

“There have been cases where evidence has been tampered with. This shows the police, as an institution, does not want to end this culture of brutality. It appears to promote it instead,” she said.

Shahindha also said limited resources and limited powers hamper the state’s independent institutions, noting that the PIC cannot take direct disciplinary action against a police officer accused of human rights violations.

“There is no political will to end torture. Despite a hiatus in police brutality from period 2009- 2011, the culture of brutality was never erased within the institution,” she said.

Shahindha has called on the government to purge employees accused of torture.

Reconciliation

Jeehan said state institutions must recognise victims of torture and offer them compensation, noting that failure to prove torture in the courtroom only exacerbates impunity and a lack of confidence in institutions.

The state must begin public interest litigation on behalf of multiple victims of torture and start a reconciliation effort, she said.

“With civil compensation, even though individuals may not be held accountable, the state institution will be held accountable. It would constitute some form of recognition for the victim, that the act of violence indeed did happen.”

She called for reconciliation mechanisms that allow both perpetrators and victims to deal with the past, as well as acknowledging the suffering caused on a national level.

“It allows society to move on, provides political stability and social coherence. It is a platform that allows society to resolve differences and hold discussions.”

“The younger generations still do not know what had happened in their history – it will provide them with answers. Social coherence cannot exist with all of these unresolved questions,” said Jeehan

Shahindha said judicial reform and political will is required for victims to receive justice.

“This may take a long time. Time for mature politics to be established in the country. Until then, the victims remain victims, caged in their trauma. They cannot be termed survivors until they receive redress.”

The UN Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul in a 2013 report said unless serious human rights violations of Maldives’ authoritarian past are addressed, there could be more instability and unrest in the country.

“Impunity affects democracy, the rule of law, and the enjoyment of human rights in a radical way, and undermines the people’s trust in state institutions,” read the report.

“States bear a responsibility not only to investigate violations of human rights, but also to ensure the right of victims to know the truth, to provide adequate reparation and to take all reasonable steps to ensure non-recurrence of the said violations. Addressing past violations could help the Maldives move forward and develop the justice system intended in the Constitution of 2008.”

Watch Esa’s testimony here. Watch Saeed’s testimony here.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Home Minister’s trial delayed as court decides on change of judge

Home Minister Umar Naseer’s scheduled hearing in his disobedience to order trial was postponed today after the Criminal Court was unable to decide on a request to change the presiding judge.

Haveeru reported that it was not yet clear whether Naseer’s plea to Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed and Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz to remove Judge Abdulla Didi from the case had been granted.

The request came after Judge Didi refused to accept a procedural point raised by Naseer in the previous hearing earlier this month.

Naseer had asked Judge Abdulla Didi to annul Article 8 (a) of the 1968 General Laws under which he is charged, claiming the clause contradicted the freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution.

Didi ruled, however, that Naseer’s claim does not classify as a point of procedure, ordering the trial to continue.

Naseer’s lawyer Adam Asif has refused to proceed with the trial until Didi’s decision on the procedural matter is issued in writing. Asif has said that Naseer intends to appeal the decision.

Didi said he took Naseer’s refusal to proceed with the trial as a refusal to speak in his own defense.

He adjourned the hearing after allowing the state to present video evidence of Naseer’s speech, and said he would hold one more hearing for concluding statements and issue a verdict in a separate hearing.

On June12, Didi had issued an arrest warrant ordering the police to present Naseer at the court after he missed three consecutive hearings while overseas on official business.

If convicted under Article 88 of the penal code, Naseer faces imprisonment, banishment or house arrest not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding MVR150 (US$10).

A similar request for a change of judge was granted to Progressive Coalition leader Ahmed ‘Sun’ Shiyam in May after the Maldivian Development Alliance had objected to the manner of the presiding judge in his alcohol smuggling trial.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs debate raising state disability benefits

Parliament began preliminary debate today on an amendment submitted by Adhaalath Party MP Anara Naeem to the Disabilities Act to raise the monthly allowance provided by the state to persons with special needs from MVR2,000 (US$150) to MVR5,000 (US$324).

Presenting the legislation to the Majlis floor, the MP for Makunudhoo said persons with special needs deserved the same “care and protection” provided by the state to the elderly, referring to the current administration raising old age pensions to MVR5,000 a month in March this year.

Anara suggested that MVR2,000 a month was not sufficient to cover the expenses of children with special needs, who require special care and attention.

“I believe it is very important in the Maldives to determine allowances to the neediest in an equal manner. That is because sometimes a person’s means are not considered when subsidies are given [and] we see subsidies given to rich or well-off people,” she said.

Anara also referred to Article 35(b) of the constitution, which states, “Elderly and disadvantaged persons are entitled to protection and special assistance from the family, the community and the state.”

In some cases, she continued, if medical treatment is provided to children with special needs at infancy, they could “grow up as normal children.”

However, specialised services for children with special needs – such as speech therapy and physiotherapy – were not available in the Maldives, she added, while parents sent children to the special needs school in the capital “only to fill time.”

Debate

While all MPs who spoke in the ensuing debate supported the amendment, Jumhooree Party MP Ilham Ahmed suggested that the government could dismiss a few deputy ministers and coordinators – who he claimed earn MVR35,000 (US$2,269) a month – and use the savings to send specialised teachers to islands.

Progressive Party of Maldives MP Ali Arif noted that there were 5,100 persons in the national registry on persons with special needs, concurring that the monthly allowance should be raised to help parents of children with special needs as they were often forced to stay home to care for the child.

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party MP Abdul Ghafoor Moosa argued that persons with special needs as well as single parents should receive the same monthly allowance as the elderly.

Ghafoor also urged the government to consider introducing unemployment benefits and a minimum wage, which he suggested should not be lower than state benefits.

In May, hundreds of people gave testimony to the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives’ (HRCM) ‘National Inquiry on Access to Education for Children with Disabilities’.

Parents spoke of the state’s failure to provide medical services and education to children with special needs whilst private services were costly. A single diagnostic assessment costs MVR5,000 and an hour of therapy costs MVR500, neither of which are covered by the ‘Aasandha’ health care scheme.

According to the HRCM, statistics from 2009 indicate that, out of 2250 children with disabilities, only 230 were attending schools at the time.

Citing a 2010 report by the HRCM and the UNDP, the US State Department’s 2013 Human Rights Report on the Maldives noted that “most schools accepted only children with very limited to moderate disabilities and not those with more serious disabilities.”

“Children with disabilities had virtually no access or transition to secondary-level education. Only three psychiatrists, two of them foreign, worked in the country, and they primarily worked on drug rehabilitation. No mental health care was available in Malé. There also was a lack of quality residential care,” the report stated.

Likes(16)Dislikes(0)

Pro-government MPs vote against debating JSC decision on Justice Ali Hameed

Pro-government MPs have voted against a motion without notice submitted by opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Imthiyaz Fahmy to debate the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) decision last week to clear Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed of misconduct over his alleged appearance in a series of sex tapes.

The early motion – which would have opened the floor to a one-hour debate – was defeated with 44 votes against and 18 in favour at the ongoing sitting of parliament.

Presenting the motion, MP Imthiyaz said the JSC decision was “a permanent stain” on the Maldivian judiciary and an obstacle to judicial reform.

Following the vote, Imthiyaz tweeted:

The presence of a disgraced judge on the Supreme Court bench – who most citizens believe has lost his integrity – threatens the independence of the apex court, adversely affects decisions of lower courts, and robs Maldivian citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed right to a free and fair trial, the party contended in a press statement this week.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Majlis standing committees constituted

Parliament yesterday (June 30) approved a report by a select committee tasked with constituting standing committees and allocating seats on the Majlis’ 13 committees.

The select committee decision was passed with 49 votes in favour, three against, and seven abstentions at yesterday’s sitting of parliament.

A list of MPs proposed by political parties for the 13 standing committees was also passed with 57 votes in favour and three abstentions.

Following the vote, 11 of the 13 standing committees held their first meeting yesterday and elected chairs and deputy chairs. MPs of the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives were elected chairs of all 11 committees.

Along with five MPs of coalition partner Maldives Development Alliance, the ruling coalition has a clear majority of 46 MPs in the 85-member People’s Majlis.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President creates Ministry of Law and Gender

President Abdulla Yameen has today created the Ministry of Law and Gender, which is set to oversee all government functions related to families, children, women, people with special needs, and human rights.

These functions, previously under the remit of the Ministry of Health, have resulted in the change of this ministry’s title to the Ministry of Health. Dr Mariyam Shakeela was today sworn in as head of this department.

Among the new ministry’s areas of oversight are the Attorney General’s Office, the special needs facility in Kaafu Guraidhoo, and the Villingili orphanage.

“The Ministry of Law and Gender will further be mandated with tackling the issue of domestic violence, apart from those responsibilities of the Courts and the Maldives Police Service,” explained a President’s Office press release.

The President’s Office revealed that the renamed Ministry of Health will be responsible for all regional hospitals and health centres, the Food and Drug Authority, and blood services.

The minister of health will also oversee the Social Protection Agency, the ‎National Drug Agency, and the Health Protection Agency.‎

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President’s nominees forwarded to committee for vetting

A number of nominees by President Abdulla Yameen for independent institutions and diplomatic posts have been forwarded to the relevant standing committee for vetting at today’s sitting of parliament.

The nominees include President Yameen’s nephew Maumoon Hameed for the vacant post of prosecutor general, ‘Kurolhi’ Adam Zahir for a vacant seat on the Police Integrity Commission, and former MP Abdul Azeez Jamal Abubakur for the new post of Information Commissioner.

The nominees will be interviewed and vetted by the independent institutions committee.

President Yameen also nominated Aishath Zahira for deputy governor of the Maldives Monetary Authority.

Among nominees for diplomatic posts were Ahmed Shian as ambassador to the EU and non-resident high commissioner to the UK, Dr Mohamed Asim as the non-resident high commissioner to Bangladesh, Abdulla Hameed as the non-resident ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, and Fathmath Inaya as the non-resident ambassador to Singapore.

The nominees to the diplomatic posts will be vetted by the national security committee.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)