>>> VERSION FRANÇAISE | |
Inter-Parliamentary Union | |
Chemin du Pommier 5, C.P. 330, CH-1218 Le Grand-Saconnex/Geneva, Switzerland |
Decision adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 195th session The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Referring to the case of Mr. Eugène Diomi Ndongala, a former member of the National Assembly of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and to the resolution it adopted at its 194th session (March 2014), Referring to the letter of the Speaker of the National Assembly of 8 October 2014 and the information provided by the complainants, Referring also to the report on the mission conducted to the DRC from 10 to 14 June 2013 (CL/193/11b)-R.2), Recalling the following allegations provided by the complainants: Mr. Ndongala, the leader of an opposition political party, is being framed because he publicly denounced massive cases of electoral fraud during the 2011 elections and contested the legitimacy of the election outcome; he is being blamed for having boycotted the National Assembly in protest, together with 40 opposition members; for these reasons, Mr. Ndongala has been the target since June 2012 of a campaign of political and legal harassment aimed at removing him from the political process and at weakening the opposition; that campaign has been marked by the following alleged violations of his fundamental rights: (i) arbitrary arrest on 27 June 2012, the day before Mr. Ndongala was to establish an opposition party platform, followed by unlawful incommunicado detention by the intelligence services from 27 June to 11 October 2012, during which time Mr. Ndongala was allegedly ill-treated; (ii) arbitrary lifting of Mr. Ndongala’s parliamentary immunity in violation of his rights of defence on 8 January 2013; (iii) arbitrary revocation of his parliamentary mandate on 15 June 2013; (iv) baseless and politically motivated judicial proceedings that disregarded the right to a fair trial; (v) illegal remand custody from April 2013 until his conviction on March 2014; (vi) denial of medical care in prison since the end of July 2013, Also recalling that the National Assembly has repeatedly asserted that, since Mr. Ndongala has boycotted the parliamentary institution to which he belonged and questioned its legitimacy, he could not expect to benefit from its protection; that at the hearing held during the 130th IPU Assembly, the delegation of the DRC stated that if Mr. Ndongala had not contested the legitimacy of the last elections and had agreed to take part in the parliamentary proceedings, the National Assembly would not have agreed to lift his parliamentary immunity or revoked his parliamentary mandate, Also recalling that, according to the authorities, Mr. Ndongala was never held incommunicado but rather fled in late June 2012 to avoid arrest in flagrante delicto proceedings; that, after his immunity had been lifted, he was arrested and remanded in custody; and that he was tried on charges of rape of minors that are unrelated to his political activities, Recalling that, according to the complainants, the accusations that Mr. Ndongala had sexual relations with minors – qualified as rape by the prosecution – are unfounded and a pure fabrication, given that: (i) Mr. Ndongala was not present on the scene of the alleged rape when the police arrived to arrest him “in the act of rape”; (ii) the girls and their alleged father were paid to accuse Mr. Ndongala by a police superintendent and a member of the majority from the same constituency as Mr. Ndongala; (iii) the girls are adults and came forward under false identities and the alleged father is a well-known criminal with several convictions for fraud; (iv) the girls and the police superintendent met in order to plot their setting up Mr. Ndongala; (v) the complainants claim that they have evidence of the above, including eyewitnesses, Considering that Mr. Ndongala’s trial started in July 2013 and concluded on 12 March 2014; most hearings of the trial were postponed; the substance of the case was only examined briefly at the last hearing according to the complainants, Considering that Mr. Ndongala was convicted as charged by the Supreme Court on 26 March 2014 and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment in the first and last instance; that the girls, recognized as rape victims by the Supreme Court, have filed for civil action for damages, with the presentation of oral arguments of the parties set for 22 October 2014, Considering that, according to the complainants, due process was not respected during Mr. Ndongala’s trial, which largely took place in camera; the allegations include the following:
Recalling also the following information provided by the complainants: Mr. Ndongala’s health has deteriorated sharply while in detention since late July 2013, but the authorities have systematically refused to allow him to be taken to hospital; Mr. Ndongala was briefly transferred to a military camp in late July 2013 for medical care, but demanded that he be transferred to one of the civilian hospitals with which the prison has an agreement, in accordance with standard prison practice, and because he feared for his safety, given that he had been unlawfully detained and tortured in that military camp in the past; after Mr. Ndongala’s cardiac arrest and emergency hospitalization on 27 December 2013, he was forcibly returned to prison the following day before the tests ordered by the doctor had been carried out; according to the complainants, he has been denied appropriate medical care since, Recalling in that regard that, in her letter of 27 November 2013, the Minister of Justice stated that there was no truth to the allegations that Mr. Ndongala had been denied medical care and that the applicable legislative provisions had been respected, that Mr. Ndongala had been seen by the doctor at the military hospital at Kokolo camp in July 2013 and that the doctor had recommended x‑rays and physiotherapy, that Mr. Ndongala had obtained a recommendation from the doctor that he continue his treatment at a hospital near the airport that had no agreement with the prison, that “the proximity of the international airport [was] indicative of Mr. Ndongala’s intentions”, and that the prison administration had acted in good faith and given Mr. Ndongala every opportunity to have access to appropriate care outside the prison, but that he had abused that possibility through his behaviour; at the hearing held during the 130th IPU Assembly (March, 2014), the delegation of the DRC said, with regard to the denial of medical care, that the fact that Mr. Ndongala was still alive was “irrefutable proof that he continued to receive treatment, otherwise he would already be dead”, Considering that the United Nations Human Rights Committee was seized of the case of Mr. Ndongala on 22 September 2014 and requested on 8 October 2014 that the DRC take all necessary measures to provide appropriate medical assistance in order to ensure that no irreparable health damage is incurred by Mr. Ndongala, Recalling that the Congolese authorities held national consultations from 7 September to 5 October 2013 in order to strengthen national unity, that the Head of State presented the recommendations of the final report that emerged from the consultations to both houses of parliament on 23 October 2013 and set up a national committee tasked with implementing them, and that the final report recommends that, “among the measures taken to ease the political tension and announced by the President of the Republic, the public authorities: (a) grant, depending on the case, a presidential pardon, release on parole and/or amnesty to inter alia (...) Eugène Diomi Ndongala (…)”, Considering that this recommendation has not been implemented to date; the nature of the charges against Mr. Ndongala makes him ineligible for amnesty under the amnesty law of February 2014 and the only possibility left for him is a presidential pardon, according to the letter of the Speaker of 8 October 2014; the complainants have stated that there was no remedy under Congolese law with the exception of a retrial (which stands no chance of succeeding given the political nature of the case according to them), a presidential pardon, or an amnesty, the latter being – in their opinion – the most appropriate way to resolve the case at this stage,
|