UN Human Rights Committee finds the Maldives violated freedom of expression of NHRI members
Graphic: Supreme Court of the Maldives - APF
The UN Human Rights Committee rules that the Supreme Court violated the freedom of expression of two former members of the HRCM.
The UN Human Rights Committee has ruled that the Supreme Court of the Maldives violated the freedom of expression of two former members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) when it carried out reprisals against the HRCM for engaging with the UN.
The HRCM was prosecuted in 2015 by the Supreme Court following a submission made by the HRCM on human rights in the Maldives to the UN's Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
The report focused on prominent human rights issues faced by the Maldives, including access to justice and the independence of the judiciary.
In particular, the report criticised the Supreme Court of the Maldives' growing powers, suggesting that the Supreme Court controls the judicial system and has weakened judicial powers vested in other superior and lower courts.
The Supreme Court ruled that the HRCM's UPR submission was unlawful, biased and undermined judicial independence, and ordered the HRCM to follow a set of guidelines designed to restrict the HRCM's work and its ability to communicate with the UN.
Assisted by the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), Ahmed Tholal and Jeehan Mahmood, former Commissioners of the HRCM, filed a communication with the UN's Human Rights Committee to highlight the Maldives' failure to ensure their right to share information freely with the UN without reprisal, in what was the first case filed with the UN on behalf of former members of a national human rights institution.
The case has wide-ranging implications, as a number of countries seek to criminalise or prosecute people to prevent them from exposing human rights violations at the UN.
The Committee observed in particular that 'independent national human rights institutions, in order to fulfill their duty to promote and protect human rights, must have the freedom to responsibly comment in good faith on the compliance of governments with human rights principles and obligations.'
"This decision by the Committee reaffirms my faith in international human rights mechanisms. Reprisals against human rights institutions for doing their work can have a chilling effect on all other oversight institutions and undermine the rule of law. This verdict sets a precedent in ensuring the sanctity of the very framework that NHRIs exists," said Ahmed Tholal.
Background to the case can be found here.
A copy of the Communication can be found here.
Date: 22 February 2021