Case N° MLD/02 - ILYAS IBRAHIM - MALDIVES

Resolution adopted without a vote by the Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 158th session
(Istanbul, 20 April 1996)

The Inter-Parliamentary Council,

Referring to the outline of the case, as contained in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights Parliamentarians (CL/158/13(a)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 157th session (October 1995) regarding the case of Mr. Ilyas Ibrahim, of the Maldives,

Considering the communication from the Minister of State for Presidential Affairs, dated 30 January 1996,

Considering the communications from the source dated 16 February, 12 March and 1 April 1996,

Recalling that Mr. Ibrahim, a former member of the Citizens' Majlis, at the close of an allegedly unfair trial, was sentenced in absentia on 9 September 1993 to 15 years and 6 months' banishment for having violated the Constitution and broken the oath taken as a member of the Cabinet by seeking election as President of the Maldives; that he was also found guilty of "illegal participation in business with foreigners" and sentenced to another year of banishment,

Recalling also that Mr. Ibrahim, on the advice of his legal representative, did not proceed with the appeal against the judgment whereby he was found guilty of violating the Constitution since the proceedings were completely unfair,

Considering that, according to the source, one of the main reasons why Mr. Ibrahim withdrew the appeal was that, as instructed by President Gayoom, he had written in February 1993 to all MPs stating categorically that he had no intention of standing for presidential nomination so long as President Gayoom himself intended to remain in office; that, however, the letter was not accepted as evidence by the Court, which had previously instructed him to make no reference to the President,

Considering that the source, in its communication of 16 February 1996, stressed once again that Mr. Ibrahim left the Maldives in June 1993 on the clear instructions of the President and that his legal representative wanted to prove in the appeal proceedings that Mr. Ibrahim had never "violated or failed to honour the oath taken as a member of the Cabinet", as stated in the judgment,

Considering that prosecution witnesses in Mr. Ibrahim's case have reportedly retracted their statements, declaring them to have been false, and that the witness who was accused of having performed black magic to guarantee Mr. Ibrahim's election as President was reportedly pardoned by the President in November 1995,

Considering that Mr. Ibrahim, on learning of the retraction of testimonies against him, on 18 September 1995, appealed to the High Court, apparently under Article 18 of the Constitution, "to alleviate him from injustice"; that in January 1996 the High Court rejected the appeal referring to paragraph 2 of Law N° 81/78, which stipulates that "where a charge has been withdrawn upon request by the person filing the charge, the case will not be heard again under any circumstance",

Considering further that, according to the source, a new regulation governing legal representation before court was adopted, and that Mr. Ibrahim may now be represented by a lawyer in the appeal he lodged against the judgment whereby he had been sentenced for illegal participation in a foreign company; that the High Court has accepted the appeal and that, however, no hearing has so far taken place,

Considering that, according to the source, Mr. Ibrahim decided, after spending almost three years abroad, to return to the Maldives and face the consequences of what he regards as an unfair trial and conviction; that he reportedly arrived in the Maldives on 9 March and was put under house arrest,

Considering that, in his communication of 30 January 1996, the Minister of State for Presidential Affairs reiterated that "while recognizing that human rights are a matter of international concern and do not stop at national borders, under international law, a case or a complaint against a sovereign State cannot be heard unless such a sovereign State has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the international organization that has received the complaint or is a member State of that organization; that "the Republic of the Maldives is fully committed to international law and internationally recognized legal principles guaranteeing human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to a fair trial",

Recalling finally that, in his letter of 3 October 1995, he stated inter alia that "the complaints communicated to the IPU must be considered in the light of the democratic principles that prevail in the country and must be cross-checked thoroughly, verified and substantiated before any action by the Union is taken",

1. Thanks the Minister of State for Presidential Affairs for his observation;

2. Regrets, however, that neither he nor any other authority to which the Committee addressed its requests for information, has replied in substance to the Committee's requests for information;

3. Stresses once again that the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians serves as an instrument of international dialogue and co­operation and is recognized as such, and that its role is that of a mediator between the sources and the authorities of the countries concerned seeking a settlement of the cases brought before it in line with the internationally recognized human rights principles;

4. Trusts, therefore, that the Maldivian authorities, in line with their stated commitment to the internationally recognized human rights principles and their wish that all information conveyed to the Committee be thoroughly cross-checked and verified, will respond more fully to the Committee's and the Council's concerns as expressed in their previous resolutions on the matter and will supply the requested documents;

5. Wishes to obtain the view of the authorities on the report that Mr. Ibrahim, as instructed by President Gayoom, announced he would not be standing for presidential nomination so long as President Gayoom intended to remain in office, and that the letter in question was not accepted as evidence by the High Court;

6. Wishes to ascertain the current situation of Mr. Ilyas Ibrahim;

7. Earnestly hopes that a review of the trial whereby Mr. Ibrahim was sentenced will be possible since prosecution witnesses have reportedly retracted their testimonies against him and since an important document, namely Mr. Ibrahim's letter of renunciation of presidential nomination, was reportedly not examined by the Court;

8. Notes with satisfaction that the rules of legal representation in court have been changed and that Mr. Ibrahim may now be represented by a lawyer in the proceedings instituted subsequent to his appeal against the judgment whereby he was sentenced for illegal participation in a foreign business, and wishes to ascertain the stage reached in the relevant proceedings;

9. Requests the Secretary General to resume contact with the Maldivian authorities, inviting them again to supply the desired information and documents, stressing that should they remain silent it would be compelled to infer that the allegations of failure to respect the human rights of Mr. Ibrahim are well founded and draw the appropriate conclusions;

10. Requests the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to continue examining the case and to report to it at its next session (September 1996).