Report of the IPU's Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians on Mu Sochua and Sam Rainsy's cases

123rd ASSEMBLY OF THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

AND RELATED MEETINGS

Geneva

REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENTARIANS

TO THE IPU GOVERNING COUNCIL

(Geneva, 6 October 2010)

Dear Mr. President,
Dear colleagues,

I would first of all like to thank the delegations that came to see us for the time they took for this exchange of views, which is always an opportunity for us not only to better understand the cases before us, but also to share our concerns with delegations. I would also like to thank the many parliaments that have provided information in writing.

During this session, the Committee examined the individual situations of 306 parliamentarians in 35 countries. It held 7 meetings with official delegations. The Committee also met with the parliamentarians concerned or their representatives in 4 of the cases. The resolutions submitted for your approval concern the cases in 21 countries around the world. One of them is presented for the first time.

In 2008, the presentation of our report was accompanied for the first time by photos of some of the parliamentarians whose cases were presented to you. This time we have managed to obtain many more and new photos which, we are sure, will help to put a human face on the numerous case files that we bring to your attention.

Let me begin with Myanmar.

[...]

I am now turning to Afghanistan and will continue to present the cases in alphabetical order.

[...]

CAMBODIA

In Bangkok, the Committee presented to you for the first time the case of Mu Sochua. At its session here in Geneva, the Committee decided to present to you also the case of Mr. Sam Rainsy, the leader of the opposition.

Let me begin with Ms. Mu Sochua. Her troubles started when she brought a defamation lawsuit against Prime Minister Hun Sen, taking the view that he had insulted her. Not only was her case quickly dismissed but the Prime Minister decided to sue her in return. He felt that she had tarnished his reputation by announcing publicly her intention to sue him and writing letters to the IPU and the Global Fund for Women. The court agreed with him and sentenced her to a fine while awarding the Prime Minister compensation. The higher courts upheld that ruling. However, the courts never looked into whether or not his reputation had indeed been tarnished, which is necessary in any defamation case. Mu Sochua stated that she would not pay the fine. The compensation and fine is now being deducted from her salary. The Committee is scandalized that her letter to the IPU was used to convict her, which means that its procedure, which is meant to protect the human rights of members of parliament, was used here to violate her fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Let me now turn to the case of Mr. Sam Rainsy, which raises similar problems, namely the use of courts for political purposes. On 23 September 2010, Mr. Rainsy was sentenced to ten years in prison, and such a sentence bars him from standing in the 2013 elections. The background to this is the following. One year ago, Sam Rainsy removed six wooden temporary border demarcation posts along the Cambodian-Vietnamese border after local peasants had complained to him that they encroached on their land. As a result, he was found guilty of the destruction of public property and sentenced to a two-year prison term. When he collected evidence to show that the border posts were on Cambodian territory, a new charge of falsifying public documents and divulging false information was brought against him. If what Mr. Rainsy says is untrue, then the authorities should be able to set the record straight by providing the correct information on the location of the disputed border posts, but they said this was a State secret. The Committee was informed that yesterday at an appeal hearing, the governmental border committee acknowledged that the border posts that Mr. Rainsy uprooted were in fact not in the right place. The Committee firmly believes that the issue in question is of a purely political nature and should therefore be resolved at the political level. We sincerely hope that the authorities will find ways to do this, so that Mr. Rainsy can resume his parliamentary activities as quickly as possible.

The Committee believes that the National Assembly can and should do much more to protect its members from encroachments by the executive authorities. As an essential part of these efforts, it should take the lead in promoting debate on strengthening the independence of the judiciary. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia has outlined a series of recommendations which, if implemented, would provide important legal protection to all, including parliamentarians.

I invite you to adopt the draft resolutions on pages 12 and 16 of the English and French versions.

[...]