TREATMENT OF DETAINEES, RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL AMONG MAIN ISSUES DISCUSSED, AS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF REPORT BY SURINAME

Human Rights Committee                                     

Eightieth Session                                          

2174^th Meeting (AM)

TREATMENT OF DETAINEES, RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL AMONG MAIN ISSUES DISCUSSED,

AS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF REPORT BY SURINAME

The critical duty of governments to guarantee liberty and the security and dignity of the person, as well as the right to fair trial, dominated this morning’s discussion as United Nations human rights experts questioned a Surinamese delegation on the country’s efforts to ensure that all its citizens enjoyed the rights and freedoms protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Wrapping up their consideration of Suriname’s second periodic report on compliance with the Covenant, experts from the Human Rights Committee expressed serious concern about the country’s treatment prisoners, juvenile offenders and other detainees.  Particularly troubling, according to the experts, were extensive periods of pre-trial detention, an apparent blanket policy barring detainee contact with the outside world for an initial two-week period, prison overcrowding and slow prison reform.

Eric Rudge, of Suriname’s Justice and Police Ministry, said the country did not practise incommunicado detention.  When accused persons were detained, their family members always knew where they were.  They also had the basic right of access to an attorney.  Further, men and women were detained separately, and boys were separated from adults.  Suriname’s policy was not to sentence underage boys and girls except in cases of heinous crimes, such as murder, even though the age of eligibility was 10 years. 

Earlier, experts had expressed serious concern about a host of issues regarding, among other things, the situation of indigenous Amerindian and Maroon populations, measures to adapt the nation’s school system to meet the needs of indigenous children, Suriname’s legal and judicial systems, and conditions under which the Government might declare a state of emergency.

Responding to concerns about Suriname’s efforts to guarantee indigenous cultural rights and civil liberties, Margo Waterval, also from the Justice Ministry, outlined the status of several pending cases before the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights regarding laws affecting the Saramaca ethnic group, as well as the Maroon and other indigenous peoples in the country’s interior. 

On granting logging concessions to third parties in the interior, she said that under the Forestry Act, indigenous people must be consulted before concessions could be granted to third parties.  It was up to traditional leaders to grant exploration rights to third parties through the State.  Emphasizing that there was no discrimination on the basis of race, she said Suriname was like a “miniature United Nations”, where all races lived in harmony. 

The Committee will reconvene on Monday, 22 March, at 10 a.m., to take up its draft General Comment on Article 2 of the Covenant (constitutional and legal framework).

Background

The Human Rights Committee met this morning to continue and conclude its consideration of Suriname’s second periodic report on compliance with the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.  (See Press Release HR/CT/648 of 18 March.)

Expert’s Response

Picking up the Committee’s consideration of Surname’s compliance efforts, RAFAEL RIVAS POSADA, the expert from Colombia, expressed concern about Suriname’s treatment of prisoners and other detainees.  He was particularly troubled by legislation allowing for “exaggeratedly” long periods of pre-trial detention.  He wondered if there were any measures under consideration to address that issue, which clearly went beyond the letter and spirit of the Covenant.  He also asked if measures were under way to modify laws, which allowed authorities to hold persons virtually incommunicado for periods of up to two weeks or even 30 days in some cases.  He also asked the Surinamese delegation to provide information on prison conditions within their country, particularly that of juveniles.

HIPOLITO SOLARI-YRIGOYEN, expert from Argentina, echoed many of those concerns, particularly regarding the prison system and the situation of juvenile detainees.  He also asked for more information on the status of the investigation into the 1986 so-called “Moiwana massacre”.  The delegation had reported that the matter was pending before the Inter-American Court, but what was actually happening?

Turning to education, he asked for more details about what appeared to be serious discrepancies in the quality of school instruction at the primary level as opposed to that of higher levels.  Was the Government doing anything to upgrade school facilities in the country’s interior?  How was the education system dealing with the large number of languages spoken in Suriname?

MAURICE GLELE AHANHANZO, expert from Benin, was also troubled by deficiencies in Suriname’s education system, and was particularly concerned that indigenous populations, Amerindians and Maroons, were being left behind.  He asked the delegation to provide more information and statistics on indigenous populations throughout the school system.

Concerned that Suriname’s policies of pre-trial detention flew in the face of the Covenant, CHRISTINE CHANET, expert from France, also asked for more information.  She also asked for clarification about specific exceptional circumstances in which authorities could extend the initial 14-day period of incommunicado by 30 days.

PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BAGWATI, expert from India, shared Ms. Chanet’s concerns about pre-trial detention, which, for some detainees, could be stretched to 44 days.  Further, he was seriously troubled because he had heard no mention that any sorts of bail procedures were available.  He asked what steps were being taken by the Government to address a number of social issues, including family planning and HIV/AIDS.

NISUKE ANDO, expert from Japan, said he had noted that Suriname’s report had stated that because of misuse of the right to strike, the State strictly enforced its “no work, no pay” principle.  Information obtained from the International Labour Organization (ILO) had said that that law was applicable in all cases and that some workers involved in strike actions might be subject to dismissal or some other form of sanction.  Could the delegation provide further information?

Suriname’s Response

EWALD LIMON (Suriname), responding to a question about labour legislation, said he was not aware of any difference between women’s wages and those of men.  Women with a good education were usually better paid than men, and better-educated men were also better paid.

On family planning, he said there were three non-governmental organizations that were well known in the Caribbean for their contribution to regional sex education and HIV/AIDS awareness projects.  Their good work was also well appreciated by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Regarding the industrial action, he said Suriname’s civil code respected the right to strike, but at the same time believed in the principle of “no work, no pay”.

ERIC RUDGE, Ministry of Justice and Police of Suriname said his country did not practice incommunicado detention.  When accused persons were detained, their family members always knew where they were.  Detained persons had the basic right of access to an attorney.  Under Article 40 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, they could appeal to the High Court on any decision by the Attorney-General.

Regarding detention facilities, he said men and women were detained separately, and boys were also separated from adults.  Suriname’s policy was not to sentence underage boys and girls except in cases of heinous crimes, such as murder, even though the age of eligibility was 10 years.  They had access to education, as well as to sociologists and other experts.

He said the country’s legal system was not a common law one, but a civil law system inherited from the Dutch colonizers.  Anybody arrested was allowed to see a judge after 44 days.  Immediately after arrest, they could file petitions asking a judge to review their case.

Conceding that there was a backlog of appeals to the High Court of Justice, he said the judiciary and the Attorney-General’s office were taking the necessary steps to remedy that situation.  In the event of such delays, a defendant could file an appeal requesting immediate hearing by a judge.

MARGO WATERVAL, Ministry of Justice and Police, said the Moiwana case was before the Inter-American Court.  The State had assigned an agent, a sub-agent and an ad hoc judge to the case and was awaiting a response from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Regarding laws affecting the Saramaca ethnic group, she said that question was also with the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights.  Several allegations in that case involved the Maroons in the interior.  There had been a hearing, but the State party had not been able to attend it and had asked the Commission to postpone it.  However, it had not granted a postponement, and the Government had asked for a hearing during the Commission’s next regular session in October.

Regarding the granting of logging concessions to third parties in the interior, she said that under the Forestry Act, indigenous people must be consulted before concessions could be granted to third parties.  It was up to traditional leaders to grant exploration rights to third parties through the State.  One of the problems was that the Government had not finished demarcating indigenous lands and required additional expertise to assist with demarcation.

Emphasizing that there was no discrimination on the basis of race, she said Suriname was like a “miniature United Nations”, where all races lived in harmony.  Great care must be taken in judging the Government’s relations with indigenous peoples.  Besides the Maroons and indigenous peoples, there were other ethnic groups in the country.

Mr. RUDGE, addressing the question of serious crimes punishable by more than three years’ imprisonment, said that if the accused had no domicile within the country, the State required a place to keep them pending investigations so that they did not flee the country.

Experts’ Questions

NIGEL RODLEY, expert from the United Kingdom, noted that incommunicado detention did not mean the disappearance of a detained person, but rather the total lack of access to a lawyer or to family.  Could the delegation confirm that was not the case in Suriname?  When access to a lawyer was denied, did it mean interrogation was not taking place?

Mr. BHAGWATI, expert from India, asked in how many cases pre-trial release was allowed for one accused.  Was there a procedure whereby an accused person could be brought promptly before a judge?

Mr. SOLARI-YRIGOYEN, expert from Argentina, sought clarification about his earlier questions.

Suriname’s Response

Mr. LIMON said the delegation would get in touch with the relevant institutions in order to obtain the required information from experts.

* *** *