DJIBOUTI

CASE N° DJI/09 - AHMED BOULALEH BARREH
CASE N° DJI/10 - ALI MAHAMADE HOUMED
CASE N° DJI/11 - MOUMIN BAHDON FARAH

Resolution adopted without a vote by the Inter-Parliamentary Council
at its 168th session (Havana, 7 April 2001)

The Inter-Parliamentary Council,

Referring to the outline of the case of Mr. Ahmed Boulaleh Barreh, Mr. Ali Mahamade Houmed and Mr. Moumin Bahdon Farah of Djibouti, as contained in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/168/13(c)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 167th session (October 2000),

Taking account of the observations supplied by the Djibouti delegation to the 105th Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (April 2001),

Recalling the following information on file:

• Mr. Boulaleh Barreh, Mr. Mahamade Houmed and Mr. Bahdon Farah were found guilty on 7 August 1996 of insulting the President of the Republic on account of their having launched a "solemn appeal to all militants ... and Djiboutians to come together and mobilise to thwart, by all legal and peaceful means, this deliberate policy of President Hassan Gouled Aptidon to rule by terror and force while trampling underfoot our Constitution and republican institutions"; they were sentenced to six months' imprisonment, a fine and five years of deprivation of their civic rights, as a result of which they were barred from standing in the parliamentary elections of December 1995 and the presidential elections of April 1999;
• Their trial had gone ahead despite a Constitutional Court decision of 31 July 1996 which, by virtue of Article 81 of the Constitution, is binding upon all administrative and jurisdictional authorities; the Court ruled that the lifting of their parliamentary immunity had been flawed because the National Assembly had failed to adopt a resolution as provided for in Article 64 of the Standing Orders and had not heard the deputies concerned, thus flagrantly violating their right of defence; the parliamentary authorities have always insisted that the deputies made a procedural error: instead of challenging the minutes of the sitting of the National Assembly Bureau at which their immunity was lifted and which, in the authorities' view, constitute the required resolution, the MPs concerned challenged the letter whereby the Speaker informed the Minister of Justice of the lifting of their immunity; the authorities also referred to the trial court's decision in this case which ruled that their parliamentary immunity had been lifted lawfully;
• On 7 February 2000, the Government and the armed rebellion signed a Framework Peace Agreement whereby the members of the armed rebellion were granted an amnesty; Article III of the Agreement, entitled "On Democracy", affirms that "there is no viable Republic without democracy, and no democracy without a balance of power, plurality of opinion, freedom to express opinions, and the right to act in their furtherance",

Noting that flawed lifting of the parliamentary immunity invalidates the subsequent judicial procedure, for which reason it had inquired about the possibility of a review of their trial; the authorities have repeatedly stated that such review was not possible as "no new facts or unknown data casting doubt on the their guilt have arisen or been revealed after their sentencing",

Mindful of the view it took at its 166th and 167th sessions in Amman and Jakarta (2000) that, given the spirit of reconciliation expressed in the Peace Agreement, it would also be fitting to extend the amnesty to former members of Parliament whose attacks on the authorities had been purely verbal; noting that the authorities expressed the opinion that granting them amnesty was no longer relevant as they would be entitled to stand in the parliamentary elections scheduled for December 2001, given that the five-year period of deprivation of their political rights would have expired by then,

1. Thanks the Djibouti delegation for the observations it provided;

2. Reiterates its conviction that, in making the allegedly offending statement, the former MPs concerned were merely exercising their right to freedom of speech, which would be quite meaningless if it did not comprise the right to criticise the Executive and denounce possible abuse;

3. Points out that the Peace Agreement expressly acknowledges the importance of freedom of speech in a democratic State;

4. Is therefore deeply disappointed at the lack of will of the National Assembly to make a tangible gesture of reconciliation, such as amnesty, towards the former MPs who, unlike the rebels, wielded not violence but words;

5. Points out that decisions of the Constitutional Council are binding on all other courts and that consequently the disregard shown by the Correctional Chamber of the Djibouti Court of Appeal for this decision flaws the entire judicial process;

6. Is therefore compelled to conclude that, in prosecuting the former MPs concerned, the State violated not only their parliamentary immunity but also their right to freedom of speech;

7. Calls on the National Assembly to ensure that the rights and privileges of its members are fully respected and to do its utmost to ensure that they enjoy the freedom of speech necessary for the effective exercise of their parliamentary mandate;

8. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to the President of the Republic, the Minister of Justice, the President of the National Assembly and the former MPs concerned;

9. Requests the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session (September 2001).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 105th Conference and related meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union" in PDF format (file size approximately 442K). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.