Tag: UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

Government defends Supreme Court’s HRCM ruling

A Supreme Court judgment that bars the human rights watchdog from communicating with foreign organization without oversight “clearly stresses” the commission’s independence, the Maldivian foreign ministry has said.

The 11-point guideline issued by the apex court, in a ruling that also found the a human rights assessment submitted by the watchdog to the UN unlawful, simply prescribes how the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives should operate within the law, the ministry said.

UN rights experts, the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and civil society groups have denounced the guideline as one that restricts the HRCM’s work and its right to share information freely with the UN.

But the foreign ministry said the guidelines “do no stipulate, in any specific terms, any restriction or limitation on the HRCM’s ability to submit reports to the UN or any other national or international organ in the future.”

The guideline was issued under controversial suomoto regulations that allow the Supreme Court to prosecute and pass judgment.

Point 7 of the guideline orders the commission to ensure “full cooperation” from other state institutions, while point 8 says the HRCM must communicate with foreign bodies according to procedures set by the state and through the relevant state institution.

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said the verdict was “completely unacceptable.” The guideline is “yet another example of the judiciary undermining human rights protection in the Maldives,” he said.

The UN Special Rapporteurs on independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, and on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst described the verdict as “an act of reprisal.”

The charges relate to a report the HRCM had submitted to the Universal Periodic Review, a process that studies the human rights record of all 193 UN member states with the aim of supporting and expanding the protection of human rights.

In the report, the HRCM had said the Supreme Court controlled and influenced the lower courts to the detriment of the Maldivian judiciary.

The apex court said the report was biased and undermined judicial independence and the Maldives constitution.

Defending the Supreme Court, the foreign ministry today said: “To suggest that the Supreme Court has, in this case, deliberately sought to curtail the activities of the HRCM, as a state institution appears to be a mischaracterization, in that the substance of the suomoto case is not concerned with the substance of the report prepared for the UPR, but issues concerning the compilation of that report.”

The Supreme Court judges, in fact, did take issue with the substance of the report, and also censured the HRCM for basing its assessment of the judiciary on reports written by Knaul, the International Commission of Jurists and advocacy group Transparency Maldives.

Then- Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, in September last year, suggested the HRCM should not cite Knaul as the judiciary had rejected her 2013 report on the judiciary.

The Supreme Court verdict, delivered eight months after the charges were first pressed, comes as the parliament prepares to appoint three new members to the HRCM as the five-year terms of three members are due to expire in August and September.

President Abdulla Yameen has nominated a former ruling party MP, the wife of a current ruling party MP and a senior official at the gender ministry for the soon to be vacant seats.

The government has meanwhile hired a law firm owned by Cherie Blair, the wife of UK’s former prime minister Tony Blair, to “strengthen the legislative framework of the government.” Omnia Strategy also specializes in public relations.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

EU urges government to retain moratorium on death penalty

The European Union (EU) has called on the government to retain the unofficial moratorium on implementing the death penalty following the enactment of new regulations to enforce capital punishment.

In a statement on Thursday (April 29), EU High Representative Catherine Ashton expressed deep concern with the adoption of the procedural regulations, which would “break the de facto moratorium which has been in place since 1953 when the last execution took place.”

“The High Representative holds a strong and principled position against the death penalty. The abolition of the death penalty is one of the key objectives of the European Union’s human rights policy worldwide. It is essential for the protection of human dignity, as well as for the progressive development of human rights,” the statement read.

“The death penalty is cruel and inhumane, and has not been shown in any way to act as a deterrent to crime.”

The High Representative urged the Maldivian government to retain the longstanding moratorium, “including in cases that involve juvenile offenders, and to work towards abolishing the practice altogether.”

The EU’s concerns were echoed in a statement last week by the the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which called for the abolition of the death penalty.

“We urge the Government to retain its moratorium on the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, particularly in cases that involve juvenile offenders and to work towards abolishing the practice altogether,” said Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the OHCHR.

“We equally encourage the Government to repeal the new regulations and other provisions that provide for the death penalty,” she added.

Minors

The OHCHR noted that that the new regulation “provides for the use of the death penalty for the offence of intentional murder, including when committed by individuals under the age of 18.”

While the age of criminal responsibility in the Maldives is 10, the statement noted that children as young as seven could be held responsible for hadd offences, while minors convicted of homicide could be executed once they turn 18 according to the new regulation.

Hadd offences include theft, fornication, adultery, consumption of alcohol, and apostasy.

“The new regulation means that children as young as seven can now be sentenced to death,” the OHCHR observed, adding that “similar provisions in the recently ratified Penal Code, allowing for the application of the death penalty for crimes committed when below the age of 18, are also deeply regrettable.”

“Under international law, those who are charged and convicted for offences they have committed under 18 years of age should not be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without possibility of release,” the statement continued.

“International human rights treaties, particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Maldives has ratified, impose an absolute ban on the death sentence against persons below the age of 18 at the time when the offence was committed.”

Local NGO Maldivian Democracy Network has also condemned the government’s decision to reintroduce the death penalty, contending that the “highly politicised and corrupt” judiciary was unfit to pass death sentences.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)