The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of Mr. D.M.S.B. Dissanayake, a member of the Parliament of Sri Lanka at the time of the events, as outlined in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/178/12(b)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 177th session (October 2005),

Taking account of the information provided by a member of the Sri Lankan delegation at the hearing held on the occasion of the 114th IPU Assembly in Nairobi,

Recalling the following information on file:

• On 3 November 2003, at a time of political crisis in Sri Lanka, Mr. Dissanayake made a speech in which he stated, in reference to the President of Sri Lanka: "Now she is asking the court whether the office of Defence Minister belongs to that Defence Minister, whether the power to issue directions to the armed forces belongs to her. Whatever decision is given by the Supreme Court… I would like to tell the Supreme Court that the Government of the United National Party does not even accept that that is a question that can be referred to the Supreme Court. We say that we do not accept any shameful decision that it gives. Therefore our Minister of Defence should remain where he is."

• On 4 November 2003 the government parliamentary group presented the Speaker with a motion signed by over 100 members of parliament, including Mr. Dissanayake, for the removal of the Chief Justice on 14 grounds of misbehaviour;

• On 7 December 2004 the Supreme Court, on which the Chief Justice sat as a member, sentenced Mr. Dissanayake in connection with his speech to two years’ rigorous imprisonment for contempt of court, a sentence not open to judicial review,

Considering that in early February 2006 President Rajapakse remitted the remainder of Mr. Dissanayake's sentence, with the result that he was released from Welikada Prison on 17 February 2006, six to eight weeks before he would normally have been entitled to release for good conduct,

Considering that, according to the source, shortly before Mr. Dissanayake's release, the parliamentary authorities informed the Commissioner of Elections that, by failing to attend Parliament for the prescribed minimum period, Mr. Dissanayake had forfeited his seat; in accordance with the Constitution, the candidate receiving the most votes in Mr. Dissanayake's constituency was subsequently declared to be elected to take his seat; Mr. Dissanayake's subsequent petition challenging the revocation of his parliamentary mandate was dismissed by the Supreme Court, reportedly without a hearing,

Bearing in mind that Sri Lanka is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and thus bound to respect the principle of non-discrimination and the right to fair trial, which includes the right of appeal, enshrined in Articles 26 and 14, respectively,

1. Notes the release of Mr. Dissanayake; trusts that he has meanwhile recovered all his rights; and would greatly appreciate confirmation of this;

2. Is nonetheless disturbed that Mr. Dissanayake lost his seat in parliament apparently on the ground that he had failed to attend parliament; is particularly concerned at the allegation that the request for the revocation of his mandate was made when it became clear that Mr. Dissanayake would soon be in a position again fully to assume his parliamentary duties; and would greatly appreciate receiving the observations of the authorities;

3. Reaffirms its conviction that in highlighting his disagreement with the invoking, for the first time ever, of the consultative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Mr. Dissanayake merely exercised his right to freedom of speech to criticize what, after all, was a highly unusual situation in Sri Lanka;

4. Remains therefore deeply concerned that Mr. Dissanayake was sentenced to a harsh prison term for making these remarks and was deprived of his freedom for more than a year; and considers this situation to be particularly alarming given the serious doubts about the impartiality of the court in the case and the fact that the sentence cannot be challenged;

5. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to the parliamentary and other competent authorities;

6. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held during the 115th IPU Assembly (October 2006).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 114th IPU Assembly and related meetings in PDF format (file size 503K approximately ). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEHUMAN RIGHTSMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS