PRESS STATEMENT
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF THE MALDIVES
9 August 2005
[Unofficial translation]
PR-006/2005
Concerns of the Human Rights Commission regarding the Human Rights Commission Bill
The concerns of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives regarding the Human Rights Commission Bill passed by the People’s Majlis on 21 July 2005 and the amendments to the Bill proposed by this Commission are stated below. The numbers of the Articles referred to are as they appear in the Bill submitted to the Majlis by the Legal Affairs Committee of the People’s Majlis.
1. Article 4: With the exception of the Commission’s President and Vice President and one other Member, all other Members should not be full time members. This is because it will be difficult to obtain seven people with “pluralistic views”, as stipulated in the Paris Principles, who will work at the Commission on a full-time basis; the workload does not require seven full-time Members, seven full-time Members will entail enormous expenses in view of the office space, secretarial resources, and the remuneration that they must be provided with.
The remuneration given to full-time Members must differ from that of other Members. [However,] at voting to determine an issue of the Commission, there must not be a variance between these two categories of Members.
2. In Article 6(a) the stipulation that one must be a Muslim infers that there are those who are not Muslims within the Maldivian citizenry, and that those who are not Muslims will be treated differently. Given that one of the key issues in human rights is not to discriminate in the treatment of different people, one must be a Muslim in order assume citizenship of the Maldives and that Article 6(b) stipulates Members “Must be a Maldivian citizen”, Article 6(a) is deemed unnecessary.
Given that provision is made in the Constitution for a Maldivian citizen to assume citizenship of another nation, the existence of Article 6(g) infers that there are citizens of varying statuses; Article 6(g) is deemed unnecessary.
Given that Article 6(i) stipulates a subjective characteristic, and given that this is not a characteristic mandatory in a President of the Republic or the justices, Article 6(i) is deemed unnecessary.
3. As Article 9 exists at present, it is probable that the Commission is negatively influenced because of the person who assumes the office of President of the Commission. And it hinders the representation of “pluralistic views” as stipulated in the Paris Principles. Hence, the responsibilities of the Commission’s President should be: to chair meetings of the Commission, and to delegate to Commission Members the inquiry of complaints submitted to the Commission. Hence, this Article needs to be amended.
4. Given that in Article 13(a)(3) investigations are depicted as being among the responsibilities of Members, which infers that every Member is a specialist investigator and that all tasks necessitated by such an investigation must be performed solely by the Members themselves. If stated in this way, it will be impractical as investigations can only be properly conducted by those who have the necessary training. Even in national human rights commissions, investigations are not [necessarily] conducted by the Members [themselves].
Given that Article 13(a)(5) stipulates subjective characteristics, Article 13(a)(5) should be deleted.
5. Given that the stipulation in 14(c) could be construed so that Members can only be removed if they violate all of Article 13, the phraseology of Article 13(c) needs to be amended as follows:
“Upon the perpetration of an act in violation of Article 13(a) and (b).”
6. In Article 17 “meeting” should be changed to “assembly”.
If it exists as meeting, it could be construed as other meetings of the Commission. It could include seminars, workshops and other such programmes.
7. Given the manner in which Article 19(a) exists, every matter submitted by someone other than the aggrieved person alleging infringement of a human right needs to be ascertained whether it has been submitted at his/her request or with his/her consent. If a person submits a complaint with regard to a person detained in jail or at a detention centre, or a handicapped person, or a mentally retarded person, the Commission can inquire into the case only after determining whether the submission has been submitted with his/her consent or at his/her request. In the case of a minor who is abused by a person legally responsible for him/her (for example, the father), it is unlikely that this permission will be obtained from the perpetrator. Hence, this Article should be amended in accordance with the Article 10(a) of the Regulation being implemented at present.
8. Article 20(a): the powers, needs to be amended in accordance with Point 7 due to the reasons stipulated therein.
9. Given the amendments brought to Article 21(b)(3) the work of the Commission cannot be continued. In view of the experience gained by the Commission up to now, in allegations regarding police or army personnel after giving a statement to the police, they hesitate in giving a statement to the Commission. In such circumstances it is absolutely necessary to obtain the statement given by him/her to the police.
Another circumstance that might arise is that a statement containing allegations of torture might be submitted to trial without including the said information. The powers to bring relevant documentations violate the Paris Principles. Thus, it needs to exist as stipulated in the draft that proposed these powers.
10. As yet in the Maldives the judiciary is not independent. As long as the Constitution being implemented at present is in existence it cannot be an independent entity. Given that Article 22 of the Bill is not in existence given the situation the Maldives is in at present for the protection of human rights, it will bring about a huge deficiency. Hence, Article 22 of the Bill needs to exist.
11. Given the manner in which Article 24 exists at present, it can be construed that in all inquiries of the Commission against any party whom there is any type of allegation must be given the opportunity to defend himself/herself. And since the Bill includes authorities and offices when it stipulates to mean people, in view of the experience gained by this Commission at present, the Article needs to be amended. Thus, Article 24 needs to exist as follows:
“The Commission shall afford for anyone accused the opportunity to speak in his/her defence, explain his/her or their viewpoint regarding circumstances surrounding the infringement, or recount the manner in which he/she or they states that he/she or they acted in relation to it. The Commission shall not refer a case for prosecution by the court if the Commission has not provided such an opportunity.”
12. Article 27 needs to be amended as follows:
“An office shall be provided for the discharging of duties of the Commission. The Commission shall employ and terminate employment of staff of the office. The Secretary-General shall manage the office of the Commission in accordance with regulations formulated by the Commission.”
The need for it to exist thus is to provide Members with the time which Members will not have to do the required work Members must undertake in order to protect human rights and promote such rights in the event that the active involvement the Commission’s President and Vice President in the administrative affairs of the Commission are necessitated.
13. Given that the stipulation in Article 28(c) means that financial records must be maintained in accordance with principles determined by the Auditor General, and given that according to the Constitution being implemented at present the Auditor General is appointed by the President of the Republic, the President of the Republic can influence the work of the Commission through the said determined principles. Hence, it is necessary to stipulate that financial records must be maintained and audits must be conducted in accordance with international principles.