GUINEA

CASE N° GUI/04 - ALPHA CONDE
CASE N° GUI/05 - EL-HADJ AMIATA MADY KABA
CASE N° GUI/06 - KOUMBAFING KEITA
CASE N° GUI/07 - MAMADY YÖ KOUYATE
CASE N° GUI/08 - IBRAHIMA KALIL KEITA

Resolution adopted without a vote by the Inter-Parliamentary Council
at its 164th session (Brussels, 16 April 1999)

The Inter-Parliamentary Council,

Having before it the case of Mr. Alpha Condé, Mr. El-Hadj Amiata Mady Kaba, Ms. Koumbafing Keïta, Mr. Mamady Yö Kouyate and Mr. Ibrahima Kalil Keïta, members of the National Assembly of Guinea, which has been the subject of a study and report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians in accordance with the " Procedure for the examination and treatment by the Inter-Parliamentary Union of communications concerning violations of human rights of parliamentarians ",

Taking note of the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/164/13(b)-R.1), which contains a detailed outline of the case,

Also taking account of the information supplied by members of the delegation of the Republic of Guinea belonging to the majority party, on the one hand, and one belonging to the opposition on the other, at two hearings held with the Committee on the occasion of the 101st Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Brussels,

Considering that Mr. Condé, President of the Rassemblement du Peuple de Guinée - RPG (Guinean People's Rally), member of the National Assembly and a candidate in the presidential elections of December 1998, was arrested on 15 December 1998 prior to the announcement of the provisional results and charged in January 1999 with " attempt to cross borders, fraudulent export of foreign currency, attempt to recruit mercenaries and breach of State security ",

Considering that, according to the members of the delegation of Guinea belonging to the majority party, Mr. Condé, having been absent from the country for a long time, returned only shortly before the election; that a television team sent to cover the electoral campaign of all five candidates to the election, seeking a brief statement from each of them the day of the vote, went to Mr. Condé's house but noted that he was absent and wondered where he could be on the day of the vote; that, according to their statement, Mr. Condé's arrest took place under the following circumstances:

• A car had attracted the attention of the Chief of a village close to the border with Côte d'Ivoire. He reported the presence of the car to the military but when they came, the car had already left the village. The military then headed towards the border where they found Mr. Condé calmly seated. When he saw the military coming he returned and after a chase the soldiers arrested Mr. Condé, who resisted and reportedly even bit one of them. He was taken to the Sub-prefecture whose officers decided to send him immediately by plane to Conakry when they realised whom they had arrested. Mr. Condé was in fact disguised and wore jeans, a small boubou and sandals.

Considering that, according to the same members of the delegation, he had violated several provisions, in particular a decree prohibiting any circulation between the provinces and one providing for an interdiction to cross the border at the time of the vote. It was clear that Mr. Condé had attempted to cross the border overland. Moreover, a bag was found in his possession containing large sums of money in different currencies and a notebook with details of expenditure on weapons and other related items,

Considering that the versions of Mr. Condé's conditions of detention and the judicial proceedings presented by the two members of the delegation and the sources differ widely:

• According to the sources, Professor Condé, who is held at Conakry Central Prison is denied the most elementary rights, namely the right to visits from his family and friends and to regular meetings with his lawyers, " who are able to see him neither when they want nor how they should ". The few visits allowed have reportedly always taken place under close military supervision. Furthermore, prominent foreigners including, for example, a group of deputies from the National Assembly of Mali and two Senegalese lawyers, were refused permission to meet him. A French member of the group of lawyers defending Mr. Condé, was turned back at Conakry Airport on the grounds that " his presence in Guinean territory is likely to cause a breach of the peace ". Moreover, the judicial authorities handling Mr. Condé's case are said to refer constantly to the Executive for all decisions, for which reason, on 22 February 1999, the group of lawyers defending Mr. Condé preferred to withdraw rather than condone " a parody of justice ". Mr. Condé went on hunger strike for some time in protest against his treatment. His state of health is said to be very worrying,

• According to the two members of the Guinean delegation, Mr. Condé was first detained in a villa of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) where he received visits without limitation and gave interviews, for which reason he was transferred to prison, where he is held in a cell equipped with electricity, a water tap, two beds, a table and a chair, a flushing lavatory, a corridor and a terrace. His medical situation is followed by his personal doctor, Dr. Cissé, who confirmed to one of the members of the delegation that Mr. Condé's state of health was good. Dr. Condé's defence team consists of five lawyers of his choice, including the French lawyer who was refused entry as there is no reciprocal legal practice agreement. Mr. Condé is interrogated only in the presence of his lawyers,

Considering also that, according to the source, on Sunday morning, 20 December 1998, the opposition staged a peaceful march in Siguiri to call for the release of Professor Alpha Condé and that demonstrators " had neither stones nor sticks nor tom-toms "; that after three-quarters of the route had been covered, the riot police and the military reportedly fired on the crowd, and that Mr. Keïta and Mr. Kouyate were reportedly arrested as they were carrying the wounded, beaten and thrown into a van, then taken to the Prefect's home, questioned and finally taken back to their homes,

Considering further that, around 11 a.m. on the following day, they were re-arrested and taken to the constabulary, that later, towards 7 p.m., they were taken to Kankan military camp where they joined up with Ms. Keïta and Mr. Mady Kaba, arrested at their respective homes, and nearly 70 men and women from Kankan. On 27 December 1998, the deputies were transferred to Kankan Central Prison and released reportedly after three months of detention subsequent to their sentencing, on 16 March 1999, by the Kankan Court of First Instance which found the four MPs guilty of causing a breach of the peace and holding unauthorised demonstrations,

Considering that, according to the sources, they were all sentenced to four months' imprisonment unsuspended and a fine of 150,000 Guinean francs each and, according to the two members of the Guinean delegation, to four months, one month being suspended; that they have resumed their parliamentary activity,

Noting that, in a letter dated 5 January 1999 addressed to the President of the Republic, the President of the National Assembly wished to ascertain the legal reasons for the arrest and detention of these MPs in view of the fundamental law of the Republic of Guinea, which stipulates in Article 9 that: " No one shall be arrested, detained or condemned unless on such grounds and motives as are established by law "; and in Article 52 which states that: " No deputy may, for the duration of the sessions, be prosecuted or arrested in a penal affair without the authorisation of the National Assembly, barring cases of flagrante delicto (paragraph 2) ",

Noting that, according to information provided at the hearing, a prison sentence exceeding three months entails forfeiture of any parliamentary mandate and a ban on standing for election,

Bearing in mind that Guinea is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), which guarantee the right to freedom of the person (Articles 9 and 6, respectively) and the right to fair trial (Articles 14 and 7, respectively),

1. Thanks the Guinean delegation for its co-operation and the information supplied;
2. Recalls that the immunity granted to MPs is designed to enable them to exercise their mandate fully and freely and to shield them from any proceedings that may be politically motivated;
3. Affirms that mutual respect for the competences, prerogatives, rights and privileges of the different State authorities is indispensable for the primacy of the law and the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy;
4. Expresses deep concern at the arrest of Mr. Condé, Mr. Kaba, Ms. Keïta, Mr. Kouyate and Mr. Keïta without any authorisation and without the National Assembly having been informed; recalls that under Article 52 of the Constitution the arrest or detaining of a Deputy requires the prior authorisation of the Assembly, except in cases of flagrante delicto, and wishes to know the reasons and facts invoked by the Executive to justify such action;
5. Recalls the general principle of human rights, enshrined in international norms to which the Republic of Guinea has subscribed, that no one shall be deprived of their liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law;
6. Expresses deep concern at the circumstances of Mr. Condé's arrest as presented to it by members of the Guinean delegation and at the circumstances of the arrests of the other deputies concerned, and wishes to ascertain whether proper arrest warrants had been issued;
7. Is also concerned at the sentencing of Mr. Kaba, Ms. Keïta, Mr. Kouyate and Mr. Keïta to a prison term - four months unsuspended according to one source, and three months unsuspended and one month suspended according to the other - which in either case appears to ban them from standing for election; would appreciate clarification in this respect together with a copy of the judgment;
8. Expresses deep concern at the fundamentally divergent accounts of Mr. Condé's conditions of detention and state of health, and would appreciate fuller information in this respect;
9. Notes with concern that a foreign lawyer was refused entry into the country on the grounds, according to the authorities, that no reciprocal legal practice agreement existed, whereas it would seem that there should be nothing to prevent anyone with a valid visa from entering the country and advising national lawyers;
10. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Speaker of the National Assembly, inviting them to provide the requested information;
11. Requests the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to continue examining the case and report to it at its next session (October 1999).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 101st Conference and related meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union" in PDF format (file size approximately 570K). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.