Parliamentary solidarity at work

206th session
of the Governing Council
(Extraordinary virtual session) 1–4 November 2020
Governing Council CL/206/9/R.2
Item 9 3 November 2020
Committee on the Human Rights of
Parliamentarians
Decisions adopted by the IPU Governing Council at its
206th
session (Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020)
CONTENTS
Page
Africa
• Côte d’Ivoire: 10 parliamentarians
Decision ....................................................................................... 1
• Democratic Republic of the Congo: Mr. Jean Jacques Mamba
Decision ....................................................................................... 5
• Gabon: Mr. Justin Ndoundangoye
Decision ....................................................................................... 8
• Uganda: Five parliamentarians
Decision ....................................................................................... 11
• United Republic of Tanzania: Mr. Tundu Lissu
Decision ....................................................................................... 15
• Zimbabwe: Ms. Joana Mamombe
Decision ....................................................................................... 18
Americas
• Brazil: Mr. David Miranda
Decision........................................................................................ 21
• Venezuela: 134 parliamentarians
Decision........................................................................................ 23
Asia
• Mongolia: Mr. Zorig Sanjasuuren
Decision........................................................................................ 28
• Philippines: Ms. Leila de Lima
Decision........................................................................................ 31
E
Dansk Interparlamentarisk Gruppes bestyrelse 2020-21
IPU Alm.del - Bilag 9
Offentligt
- ii - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
Europe
• Belarus: Mr. Victor Gonchar
Decision ............................................................................................. 34
MENA
• Egypt: Mr. Mostafa al-Nagar
Decision ............................................................................................. 37
• Palestine/Israel: Mr. Marwan Barghouti
Decision ............................................................................................. 40
• Palestine/Israel: Mr. Ahmad Sa’adat
Decision ............................................................................................. 43
CL/206/9/R.2 - 1 -
3 November 2020
Côte d’Ivoire
Decision adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020)
Alain Lobognon, Twitter
CIV-07 - Alain Lobognon
CIV-08 - Jacques Ehouo
CIV-09 - Guillaume Soro
CIV-10 - Loukimane Camara
CIV-11 - Kando Soumahoro
CIV-12 - Yao Soumaïla
CIV-13 - Soro Kanigui
CIV-14 - Issiaka Fofana
CIV-15 - Bassatigui Fofana
CIV-16 - Mohamed Sess Soukou
Alleged human rights violations
 Arbitrary arrest and detention
 Lack of due process at the investigation stage
 Lack of fair trial proceedings
 Violation of freedom of opinion and expression
 Failure to respect parliamentary immunity
A. Summary of the case
This case concerns the situation of several Ivorian members of
parliament who have faced violations of their fundamental
rights since 2018 in the exercise of their parliamentary
mandate.
Cases of Mr. Alain Lobognon and Mr. Jacques Ehouo
(2018–2019)
In October 2018, the investiture as mayor of Mr. Jacques
Ehouo, a member of parliament from the Democratic Party of Côte d’Ivoire (PDCI), did not take place
immediately following his election because of allegations of corruption and misappropriation of funds
that surfaced shortly after his victory. After initially refusing to appear at a hearing when summoned by
Case CIV-COLL-01
Côte d’Ivoire: Parliament affiliated to the
IPU
Victims: 10 male opposition members of
parliament
Qualified complainants: Section I.1(a) of
the Committee Procedure (Annex I)
Submission of complaints: January 2019
and February 2020 (CIV-09 to CIV-16)
Recent IPU decision(s): May 2020
Recent IPU mission(s): - - -
Recent Committee hearing(s): Hearing of
the delegation of Côte d’Ivoire at the 140th
IPU Assembly in Doha (April 2019)
Recent follow-up:
- Communication from the authorities:
Observations of the Government: Letter
from the Speaker of the National Assembly
(May and October 2020)
- Communication from the complainants:
October 2020
- Communications addressed to the
authorities: Letters to the Minister of
Justice and the Speaker of the National
Assembly (June and September 2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainants: October 2020
- 2 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
the Economic Police, invoking his status as a member of parliament, Mr. Ehouo eventually attended a
hearing on 10 January 2019, following which he was charged by the Prosecutor with misappropriation
of public funds, forgery and the use of counterfeit documents, and money laundering.
Mr. Ehouo’s case is linked to that of Mr. Alain Lobognon, who had expressed his concern on social
media, in January 2019, about the legality of the action taken against Mr. Ehouo by the Prosecutor.
Mr. Lobognon had posted a tweet, following which he was accused of posting a message that
amounted to spreading fake news and causing public disorder. The Prosecutor consequently ordered
his arrest for a flagrante delicto offence. On 15 January 2019, Mr. Lobognon was taken into custody.
The Bureau of the National Assembly met on 16 January 2019 and decided to demand that
Mr. Lobognon’s custody and the proceedings against both members of parliament be suspended. The
Prosecutor is understood to have disregarded this decision, as Mr. Lobognon was sentenced on
29 January 2019 in the court of first instance to a one-year prison term in a trial that his lawyers
claimed lacked fair trial proceedings and was biased. On 13 February 2019, the court of appeal
sentenced Mr. Lobognon to a six-month suspended prison term. Mr. Lobognon was released and
lodged an appeal at the court of cassation. As for Mr. Ehouo, he took office as mayor following his
investiture on 23 March 2019. However, it is not clear whether Mr. Ehouo is still subject to a judicial
investigation.
New complaints received in late 2019
In December 2019, the Committee received a new complaint about nine members of the National
Assembly, including Mr. Lobognon, who had allegedly been arbitrarily arrested with Mr. Loukimane
Camara, Mr. Kando Soumahoro, Mr. Yao Soumaïla and Mr. Soro Kanigui on 23 December 2019. The
five members of parliament have been charged with causing public disorder, challenging the authority of
the State and spreading fake news, bringing discredit to state institutions and their operation, all of which
amount to an attack on state authority. At the same time, member of parliament and former Speaker of
the National Assembly, Mr. Guillaume Soro, was allegedly prevented from returning to Côte d’Ivoire and
had an international arrest warrant issued against him for misappropriation of public funds and seeking
to challenge the integrity of the State. In its communication of 13 May 2020, the Ivorian Government
dismissed the complainants’ allegations, insisting on the legality of the procedure followed. The five
members of parliament allegedly stated during a press conference held on 23 December 2019 that the
Ivorian airport authorities had prevented Mr. Soro's private plane from landing in Côte d'Ivoire and that
his plane had therefore been rerouted to Ghana. According to the authorities, this information was fake,
as it had reportedly been denied by the National Civil Aviation Authority in a press release in which it
stated that authorization to fly over Ivorian territory and to land at Abidjan airport had been granted on
20 December 2019. The authorities did not send a copy of this press release.
In its communication of 13 May 2020, the Ivorian Government maintained that the allegations of failure
to respect the parliamentary immunity of the members of parliament were completely unfounded, as
they are accused of having actively participated in the first phase of the conspiracy against state
security and were prevented from carrying out the second part of their plan involving an insurrection,
due to judicial police intervention. These alleged facts constitute for the Ivorian Government a proven
flagrante delicto offence, thereby justifying the absence of authorization from the Chamber Bureaux to
which the members belong. In their letter of 21 October 2020, the parliamentary authorities indicated
that the flagrante delicto nature of the offence referred to by the Ivorian Government relates, in the
present case, not to an isolated action or aim, but rather to a conspiracy, under the terms of article 163
and subsequent articles of the Ivorian Criminal Code. It was in this context that the immunity of the
members of parliament was lifted on 20 January 2020 in a decision taken by the Bureau of the
National Assembly, even though these members had already been arrested and detained.
Mr. Guillaume Soro’s situation
With regard to the case of Mr. Soro, the Ivorian Government confirmed its involvement in two separate
cases, one of which relates to a destabilization plan due to be carried out imminently, which emerged
from an audio recording in which Mr. Soro reportedly exposed his plan to launch an attack against
state security. According to the authorities, this plan consisted in the recruitment of armed individuals
present in the country, with a view to harming the integrity of the national territory. The Ivorian
CL/206/9/R.2 - 3 -
3 November 2020
authorities concluded that there was a direct link between this recording, dating back to 2017, and
Mr. Soro's political campaign, the aim of which was to discredit the Republic’s institutions. According
to the authorities, the planned conspiracy became increasingly more plausible after the discovery of
weapons of war in a lagoon in Assinie. The second case involving Mr. Soro is said to concern the
misappropriation of funds following the alleged purchase in 2007 of a property using treasury funds,
the real ownership of the property having been concealed.
On 22 April 2020, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (AfCHPR), under its
implementation of interim measures, ordered the suspension of the arrest warrant issued against
Mr. Soro, the provisional release of the members of parliament currently in detention, and adherence
to the status quo until the adoption of a decision on the merits of this case. Despite the AfCHPR’s
ruling, the Ivorian justice system continued examining Mr. Soro’s case, who was found guilty of
misappropriation of funds and sentenced on 28 April 2020 by the Abidjan court of first instance to
20 years’ rigorous imprisonment, deprivation of his civil and political rights for a period of five years
and a fine of 4.5 billion CFA francs. Given the AfCHPR’s ruling and the fact that Mr. Soro's trial had
been marked by numerous judicial irregularities, his lawyers decided not to appeal his conviction at
first instance. In their letter of 21 October 2020, the parliamentary authorities emphasized that
recognition of AfCHPR jurisdiction by the Member States of the African Union was voluntary.
According to the authorities, the ruling handed down by the AfCHPR in Mr. Soro's case had
overstepped its mandate, which limits its jurisdiction to only identifying human rights violations.
On 15 September 2020, the Constitutional Council invalidated the candidacy of Mr. Guillaume Soro,
while the AfCHPR ordered the reinstatement of his candidacy for the presidential elections.
Recent developments
On 24 September 2020, the authorities released members of parliament Mr. Soro Kanigui,
Mr. Loukimane Camara and Mr. Soumaïla Yao. The three parliamentarians were granted a provisional
release and placed under judicial supervision with serious restrictions, including being prohibited from
contacting each other, from engaging in "cyber activism" or from participating in "political meetings". In
their communication of 21 October 2020, the parliamentary authorities indicated that Mr. Kando
Soumahoro had also been provisionally released after recovering from COVID-19. The authorities also
confirmed that Mr. Alain Lobognon would continue to be held in detention for reasons known only to
the investigating judge in charge of the case.
The communications of the Ivorian authorities of 13 May and 21 October 2020 contain no
documentation establishing the truth of the statements made, in particular no copy of the ruling
handed down against Mr. Soro in the money-laundering case, no copy of the audio recording
mentioned (only extracts were provided) together with the date on which it was reportedly made, and
no copy of the arrest and search warrants.
B. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Thanks the Ivorian parliamentary authorities for the information provided in their letter of
21 October 2020;
2. Notes the provisional release under judicial supervision of Mr. Loukimane Camara, Mr. Soro
Kanigui, Mr. Soumaïla Yao and Mr. Kando Soumahoro; considers nevertheless that the restrictive
conditions attached to their release are in no way justified; considers, rather, that such conditions
reinforce the complainants' allegations that the proceedings against these members of parliament
are politically motivated and are part of the continued political and judicial harassment to which
they have been subjected since 2019; underscores that these members of parliament remained in
detention for nine months with no legal prospect of a fair trial being held;
3. Deplores the continued detention of Mr. Alain Lobognon in the absence of any material
evidence, especially given he is still being held during the COVID-19 pandemic period and that
his state of health is fragile; and calls on the authorities to release him immediately if they are
unable to provide material evidence of his guilt in relation to the charges against him;
- 4 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
4. Notes the arguments provided by the parliamentary authorities concerning the evidence against
the members of parliament, in particular the discovery of weapons hidden in the homes of those
accused; stresses, however, that the Ivorian authorities have so far failed to provide any
documentation to establish the truth of these allegations, given that it has not been established
that Mr. Lobognon and the four other members of parliament hitherto detained had weapons in
their homes;
5. Regrets that, given the proven violations of his fundamental rights, which were also found by the
African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights in two separate rulings, Mr. Soro was deprived of
his civil and political rights; once again calls on the authorities to provide a copy of the ruling of
the court of first instance in order to understand on what grounds the sentence was passed
against Mr. Soro;
6. Recalls that, in its decision of May 2020, further information regarding the audio recording
constituting the key evidence for the Prosecutor’s charges was requested from the authorities;
recalls, moreover, that the authenticity of this recording has been challenged by the
complainants;
7. Is concerned about the arbitrary measures to which the legal advisers of Mr. Soro and of the
other members of parliament are reportedly currently subject; recalls that the right to defence is
a fundamental right recognized for every individual and which can only be realized by their legal
advisers enjoying the effective and unimpeded exercise of their functions;
8. Takes note of the lack of information on Mr. Jacques Ehouo’s case; and decides to close this
case pursuant to article 25(b) of its Procedure for the examination and treatment of complaints,
in the absence of recent information from the complainant on the judicial investigation into the
corruption offences to which Mr. Ehouo is reportedly still subject;
9. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the parliamentary authorities, the
Minister of Justice and the complainants and to any third party likely to be in a position to supply
relevant information;
10. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.
CL/206/9/R.2 - 5 -
3 November 2020
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Decision adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020)
© Jean Jacques Mamba
COD-148 – Jean Jacques Mamba
Alleged human rights violations
 Threats, acts of intimidation
 Lack of due process at the investigation stage
 Violation of freedom of opinion and expression
A. Summary of the case
On 13 May 2020, Mr. Jean Jacques Mamba filed a petition, which
was signed by 62 members of parliament, seeking the removal
from office of the First Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly,
Mr. Jean-Marc Kabund. This petition came about as a result of
Mr. Kabund's refusal to respond to two written requests made by
Mr. Jean Jacques Mamba inviting Mr. Kabund to explain the
statements he had made regarding the organization of a
congress for parliamentarians costing seven million US dollars.
Following the filing of the petition with the National Assembly,
member of parliament Mr. Simon Mpiana claimed that his
signature had been forged and filed a complaint to the court of
cassation. The complainant contends that Mr. Mpiana’s
accusations were unfounded, in that two members of parliament
allegedly attested that Mr. Mpiana had signed the petition in their
presence. The former First Deputy Speaker also filed an appeal
with the Council of State challenging his removal from office.
On 22 May 2020, Mr. Mamba alerted the police to the attack on
his home. The day after the attack, police personnel came to his home and proceeded to arrest him.
The complainant alleges that Mr. Mamba's arrest took place under humiliating conditions and in the
absence of any documentation authorizing his arrest. Mr. Mamba was reportedly immediately brought
before the judge of the court of cassation without being given an opportunity to attend a hearing.
Case COD-148
Democratic Republic of the Congo:
Parliament affiliated to the IPU
Victim: Opposition member of
parliament
Qualified complainant(s): Section
I.(1)(a) of the Committee Procedure
(Annex I)
Submission of complaint: September
2020
Recent IPU decision(s): - - -
Recent IPU mission(s): - - -
Recent Committee hearing(s): - - -
Recent follow-up:
- Communication from the authorities:
- - -
- Communication from the
complainant: October 2020
- Communication addressed to the
authorities: Letter to the Speaker of
the National Assembly (September
2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainant: October 2020
- 6 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
According to the complainant, the purpose of this manoeuvre was to make sure Mr. Mamba was
convicted on the same day in a bid to quash his petition and thus render it null and void. This was
unsuccessful because, after noting the absence of a hearing and of information on the facts justifying
his arrest, the court of cassation judge decided to release Mr. Mamba and to place him under house
arrest. Furthermore, the National Assembly considered Mr. Mamba's petition after a validation
committee verified the 62 signatures. Thus, on 25 May 2020, the First Deputy Speaker was removed
from office. This decision was ratified by the Constitutional Court on 17 June 2020.
On 27 May 2020, the National Assembly passed a resolution calling for the suspension of
Mr. Mamba’s detention and the proceedings against him, pursuant to article 107 of the Constitution,
which applies to ongoing parliamentary sessions. On the same day, the court of cassation decided to
stay the proceedings until the end of the current parliamentary session.
On 15 September 2020, when the parliamentary session resumed, the prosecution issued a fresh
warrant for Mr. Mamba’s arrest on the premise that the National Assembly’s resolution only applied to
the preceding session. Mr. Mamba has since left the country to avoid prison. The complainant adds
that the member of parliament has lost all confidence in the justice system, as he claims that the
decision to convict him has already been taken.
In a meeting with the IPU Secretary General, the Minister for Human Rights of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo affirmed the arbitrary nature of Mr. Mamba's detention. He also reaffirmed his
support for the member of parliament and his commitment to upholding the rights of members of
parliament.
B. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Notes that the complaint concerning Mr. Jean Jacques Mamba is admissible, considering that
the complaint: (i) was submitted in due form by complainants qualified under Section I.1(a) of
the Procedure for the examination and treatment of complaints (Annex I of the Revised Rules
and Practices of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians); (ii) concerns an
incumbent member of parliament at the time of the initial allegations; and (iii) concerns
allegations of violation of freedom of opinion and expression, lack of due process at the
investigation stage, and threats and acts of intimidation, allegations that fall under the
Committee’s mandate;
2. Is greatly concerned by the fact that Mr. Mamba’s arrest appears to have violated his
parliamentary immunity and that the legal proceedings against him appear to stem from the
legitimate exercise of his parliamentary mandate; stresses that Mr. Mamba's petition exceeded
the 50 signatures required by the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly and that, of the
62 signatures collected, only the authenticity of one has been questioned; notes that the
National Assembly has verified and validated this petition and that the Constitutional Court has
upheld the removal from office of the former First Deputy Speaker;
3. Regrets that Mr Mamba was forced to leave his country and is therefore unable to participate in
the work of the current parliamentary session due to the fresh arrest warrant issued against him;
4. Points out that this case must be seen in the context of a large number of other cases in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo that have been referred to the Committee on the Human
Rights of Parliamentarians and which have so far not been fully resolved; stresses that
Mr. Mamba's case should therefore prompt the competent authorities to take these concerns in
question all the more seriously; encourages the authorities to ensure that progress made so far
at the political level is not undermined, by taking the necessary steps to guarantee Mr. Mamba’s
security and uphold his fundamental rights;
CL/206/9/R.2 - 7 -
3 November 2020
5. Welcomes steps taken by the National Assembly in this regard following Mr. Mamba’s arrest on
22 May 2020 to guarantee his rights, in particular the passing of a resolution on 27 May 2020
calling for the suspension of proceedings against him; invites the parliamentary authorities to
take all necessary measures to ensure that Mr. Mamba is able to return to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo without fear of further arrest and prosecution on the same charges;
6. Takes note with satisfaction the support shown by the Minister for Human Rights with respect to
Mr. Mamba’s rights to exercise his parliamentary mandate; and expresses the hope that he will
continue to follow up Mr. Mamba’s case and that other executive and judicial authorities will do
likewise; wishes to be kept informed in this respect;
7. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the parliamentary authorities, the
Minister for Human Rights, the Prosecutor General, the complainant and any third party likely to
be in a position to supply relevant information;
8. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.
- 8 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
Gabon
Decision adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020)
© Justin Ndoundangoye
GAB-04 – Justin Ndoundangoye
Alleged human rights violations
 Torture, ill-treatment and other acts of violence
 Arbitrary arrest and detention
 Lack of due process at the investigation stage
 Failure to respect parliamentary immunity
 Impunity
A. Summary of the case
Mr. Justin Ndoundangoye, a Gabonese member of parliament,
has reportedly been held in pretrial detention at the Central Prison
of Libreville since 9 January 2020, accused of instigating
misappropriation of public funds, bribery, and money laundering
and conspiracy offences.
Mr. Ndoundangoye is the former Secretary General of the
Association des jeunes émergents volontaires (Association of
Young Emerging Volunteers – AJEV). According to the
complainant, the proceedings against and detention of
Mr. Ndoundangoye are said to be part of a political settling of
scores connected to his views and links to the AJEV. He was
reportedly detained during the so-called “Opération Scorpion”
(Operation Scorpion), in which around 20 people, all members of
the AJEV, were arrested, taken into custody, charged and placed
on remand.
Case GAB-04
Gabon: Parliament affiliated to the IPU
Victim: Member of the majority
Qualified complainant(s): Section I.1.(a)
of the Committee Procedure (Annex I)
Submission of complaint: May 2020
Recent IPU decision(s): - - -
Recent IPU mission(s): - - -
Recent Committee hearing(s): - - -
Recent follow-up:
- Communication from to the authorities:
- - -
- Communication from the complainant:
September 2020
- Communications addressed to the
authorities: Letters addressed to the
Speaker of the National Assembly
(October 2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainant: September 2020
CL/206/9/R.2 - 9 -
3 November 2020
Among other irregularities, the complainant states that Mr. Ndoundangoye was reportedly kept in
police custody for a period of two weeks in violation of the provisions of article 56 of the Criminal
Procedure Code of Gabon, which provides for a maximum period of 48 hours, renewable once. During
these two weeks, he was allegedly questioned by officials of the Directorate General for Counter-
Interference and Military Security, who were not judicial police officers. He was reportedly unable to
speak to his lawyers while in police custody. The lawyers did not have access to the file, either to the
procedural documents or to the evidence against him. The only documents available to the defence
was the remand order.
Mr. Ndoundangoye was reportedly unable to comment on the facts of the case as he had allegedly
been charged at the start of the preliminary examination. Moreover, the indictment issued by the
Public Prosecutor is said to be seriously flawed, for example not including the precise date when the
offences were committed or any other concrete evidence establishing the alleged offences. The
complainant claims that Mr. Ndoundangoye was detained without being questioned by an investigating
judge, in violation of the relevant domestic legislation.
On 26 December, Mr. Ndoundangoye was reportedly arrested "manu militari" by armed officers before
the Bureau of the National Assembly had endorsed the lifting of his parliamentary immunity and
therefore before it had come into effect. Likewise, Mr. Ndoundangoye’s bank assets were said to have
been frozen from the beginning of December 2019 in the absence of any legal action and before his
parliamentary immunity had been lifted.
The complainant claims that, on the night of 25 to 26 January 2020, after ordering him to take all his
clothes off, three hooded prison officers tied up Mr. Ndoundangoye with his hands behind his back.
They allegedly asked him to lie flat on his stomach, legs apart. Held by each leg by an officer, he was
reportedly beaten in the testicles, carried out by the third officer using a thick rope knotted at the end.
He reportedly received sustained blows to the testicles for some time, and was then turned over,
knees pressed against his temples, legs still apart, and subjected to blows by the knotted rope to his
penis. He also reportedly at this time received several punches and kicks to his ribs and hips. The
officers allegedly photographed him while he was naked. Before leaving him, they are said to have
strongly advised him not to say a word to his lawyer, otherwise they would come back for "a killing". In
taking these threats further, they allegedly threatened to rape his wife and kill his children if the matter
was publicized.
A request for intervention in the form of protection was reportedly sent to the specialized investigating
judge, with an official copy sent to the Public Prosecutor. In particular, the judge was reportedly asked
to order that Mr. Ndoundangoye be admitted to hospital so he could undergo appropriate
examinations following the alleged acts of torture. This request reportedly remains unanswered.
On 7 February 2020, during a press conference, the Public Prosecutor reportedly stated that the acts
of torture had not been proven and contested their existence on the basis of a report not
communicated in the proceedings, without having heard the victim beforehand.
On 11 February 2020, Mr. Ndoundangoye reportedly attended a hearing with the investigating judge of
the second chamber. During the hearing, he reportedly explicitly denounced the acts of torture of
which he was allegedly a victim and the threats made against him, but his statements were not
recorded and no follow-up action was taken. The member of parliament’s lawyers then reportedly sent
a letter of denunciation to the investigating judge of the second chamber.
The case has reportedly been referred to the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Minister of
Justice, the Public Prosecutor and other bodies. No action has been taken to date.
Mr. Ndoundangoye has reportedly been in solitary confinement since the start of his detention.
- 10 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
B. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Notes that the complaint concerning Mr. Ndoundangoye is admissible, considering that the
complaint: (i) was submitted in due form by a qualified complainant under Section I.1.(a) of the
Procedure for the examination and treatment of complaints (Annex I of the Revised Rules and
Practices of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians); (ii) concerns an
incumbent member of parliament at the time of the initial allegations; and (iii) concerns
allegations of torture, ill-treatment and other acts of violence, arbitrary arrest and detention, lack
of due process at the investigation stage, and failure to respect parliamentary immunity,
allegations that fall under the Committee’s mandate;
2. Is deeply concerned about the member of parliament's continued detention, in view of the
worrying allegations concerning his conditions of detention; urges the national authorities to
take all necessary steps to ensure Mr. Ndoundangoye’s full enjoyment of his rights, in particular
his right to life, to physical integrity and to access to judicial guarantees, especially in the current
context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has meant that those detained in prison and other
confined spaces are at increased risk of catching the disease;
3. Wishes to receive official and detailed information on the facts justifying each of the charges
brought against Mr. Ndoundangoye, on the procedure followed by parliament to lift his
parliamentary immunity, on the steps taken to investigate the alleged acts of torture and threats
reported by the complainant, on progress made in the identification and punishment, if any, of
those responsible, as well as on all the points mentioned in this decision;
4. Sincerely believes in the importance of ongoing and constructive dialogue with the national
authorities, first and foremost with the parliament of the country concerned; encourages, in this
regard, the Parliament of Gabon to enter into a dialogue with the Committee to ensure a
satisfactory and rapid settlement of this case; affirms that the IPU stands ready to provide
assistance aimed at building the capacities of parliament and other public institutions, upon
request, in order to identify any underlying issues that may have given rise to the filing of the
complaint and to rectify such issues, including with regard to the legislation and procedures
implemented in the case; requests the competent authorities to provide further information on
how the IPU could best provide such assistance;
5. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the President of the Parliament of
Gabon, the complainant and any third party likely to be in a position to supply relevant
information;
6. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.
CL/206/9/R.2 - 11 -
3 November 2020
Uganda
Decision adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020)
Mr. Robert Kyagulanyi, aka Bobi Wine, arrives at the headquarters of his political
party in Kampala, Uganda, on 21 August 2020. SUMY SADURNI/AFP
UGA19 - Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu (aka Bobi Wine)
UGA20 - Francis Zaake
UGA21 - Kassiano Wadri
UGA22 - Gerald Karuhanga
UGA23 - Paul Mwiru
Alleged human rights violations
 Torture, ill-treatment and other acts of violence
 Arbitrary arrest and detention
 Lack of due process at the investigation stage and lack of
fair trial proceedings
 Violation of freedom of opinion and expression
 Impunity
A. Summary of the case
The case is set against the background of the by-election in Arua
municipality in Uganda on 15 August 2018. Mr. Kassiano Wadri, a
former parliamentarian, stood in that election as an independent
and was elected. The four other parliamentarians, who are either
independents or from the opposition, campaigned for Mr. Wadri.
The five individuals were violently arrested on 14 August 2018, on
the eve of the by-election, together with 29 other people, in the
district of Arua, after President Yoweri Museveni’s convoy was
reportedly pelted with stones. According to credible reports, the
parliamentarians were tortured and ill-treated while in detention. All
those arrested, including the five parliamentarians, were charged
with treason, which in Uganda carries the death penalty. On
6 August 2019, the following additional charges were reportedly
brought against them in relation to the same events: intent to annoy, alarm or ridicule the President,
incitement to violence, disobedience of lawful orders, failure to prevent obstruction of traffic, confusion
or disorder during a public meeting, and failure to give right of way to the President.
Case UGA-Coll-01
Uganda: Parliament affiliated to the IPU
Victims: Five male parliamentarians, four
independent and one opposition
parliamentarian
Qualified complainant(s): Section I.1.(a)
and (d) of the Committee Procedure
(Annex I)
Submission of complaint: August 2018
Recent IPU decision(s): October 2019
Recent IPU mission(s): January 2020
Recent Committee hearing(s): Hearing
with the Ugandan delegation to the 139th
IPU Assembly (October 2018)
Recent follow-up:
- Communications from the authorities:
Letter from the Attorney General
(October 2018); letter from the Speaker
of Parliament to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs (November 2018); letters from
the Speaker of Parliament (February
and October 2019)
- Communication from the complainant:
September 2020
- Communications addressed to the
authorities: Letters addressed to the
Speaker of Parliament (March, April
and September 2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainant: October 2020
- 12 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
The complainants claim that due process guarantees have been violated from the outset, that the
parliamentarians are victims of political repression, as there is no evidence to support the charges
brought against them, and that no action has been taken to hold to account the security forces that
mistreated them upon their arrest.
The complainants further state that Mr. Kyagulanyi is a popular young parliamentarian, strongly
supported among others by the four other parliamentarians in this case, and a well-known singer who
enjoys wide popularity among young people. Through his songs and, since 2017 through his
parliamentary work, he has been a vocal critic of President Museveni and his government. The
complainants affirm that the authorities are doing everything possible to prevent Mr. Kyagulanyi from
staging concerts and thus conveying his music and political message. These steps have gone as far
as banning Mr. Kyagulanyi from wearing his trademark red beret.
From 25 to 29 January 2020, a Committee delegation conducted an on-site mission to Uganda.
Despite its specific request, the delegation was not able to obtain concrete information on possible
ongoing cases against police officers in connection with the allegations of torture against the five
members of parliament. The delegation was told that no information could be disclosed as the matter
was sub judice. Among other concerns, the delegation regretted that no progress seemed to have
been made towards investigating these allegations and urged the relevant authorities to conduct a
prompt, impartial and independent investigation, including, where appropriate, the filing of specific
torture charges against the perpetrators and the application of the corresponding penalties under
domestic law. It also urged parliament to use its oversight powers effectively to this end.
In a recent development, Mr. Francis Zaake was detained by police and the military again on the evening
of Sunday 19 April 2020 and released on 29 April 2020. According to information received, Mr. Zaake
was severely tortured while in detention, denied access to his lawyer and family, food and independent
medical attention. According to the complainants, Mr. Zaake was initially charged with disobedience of
lawful orders for distributing food to his community in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. These
charges were finally dropped in August 2020. The complainants also claim that no investigation has
been carried out into these allegations of torture and that no action has been taken by parliament to
support him in his search for justice. On 6 May 2020, Mr. Zaake lodged a motion before the High Court
of Uganda in Kampala (Civil Division) against the Attorney General of Uganda and seven senior officials
of the police and the military. The motion seeks to establish responsibility for the violation of his rights,
including the right to a fair trial and to be protected from torture and ill-treatment, which are protected
under Ugandan law. To date, the court has not issued a decision on that petition. According to the
complainants, Mr. Zaake continues to receive credible death threats and intimidating messages from
police officers because of his political opinions and to force him to step down from the political stage and
put an end to his legal action against his alleged torturers.
B. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Thanks the Ugandan authorities, in particular parliament, for their cooperation during the recent
mission by the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to Uganda and for
facilitating its conduct;
2. Thanks the Speaker of Parliament for her cooperation with the Committee during the mission;
regrets nevertheless that she and the Ugandan Parliament chose not to meet virtually with the
Committee at its most recent session, all the more so given that the issues of concern in this
case directly affect parliament; recalls in this regard that the Committee’s procedure is based on
ongoing and constructive dialogue with the authorities, first and foremost the parliament of the
country concerned;
3. Fully endorses the findings and recommendations contained in the mission report
(CL/206/9/R.1);
CL/206/9/R.2 - 13 -
3 November 2020
4. Reiterates its concern that, more than two years after the events, no one has been held to
account for the torture and ill-treatment of the five parliamentarians, and allegedly several
others, in Arua in August 2018 by the security forces; is gravely concerned to learn that similar
situations with similar outcomes apparently continue to occur in Uganda whereby
parliamentarians are detained and tortured by state officials with impunity, as happened to
Mr. Zaake in April 2020, which situation the Speaker of Parliament has publicly denounced;
reiterates that impunity, by shielding those responsible from judicial action and accountability,
decisively encourages the perpetration of further serious human rights violations and that
attacks against the life and personal integrity of members of parliament, when left unpunished,
not only violate the fundamental rights of individual parliamentarians and of those who elected
them, but also affect the integrity of parliament and its ability to fulfil its role as an institution;
urges, therefore, parliament to use its oversight powers effectively to ensure that the very serious
and detailed allegations of torture against the five members of parliament are fully and
immediately investigated, followed by whatever accountability steps are warranted as a result; and
requests the parliamentary authorities to provide information on any relevant developments in this
regard and on action taken by parliament to this end; urges the relevant authorities to ensure that
the civil proceedings that Mr. Zaake has initiated against several named state individuals proceed
quickly, bearing in mind that the level of detail of his petition should facilitate a speedy conclusion;
5. Expresses concern about detailed information received on serious and continuous threats,
including credible death threats, targeting Mr. Zaake and the allegation that his complaints
about these have not been examined; urges, therefore, the Ugandan authorities to make every
effort, as is their duty, to identify the culprits, to bring them to justice, and to put in place the
security arrangements that Mr. Zaake’s situation requires; considers that parliament has a
vested interest in using its powers to the fullest to help ensure that effective investigations on
these threats are being carried out and protection offered to Mr. Zaake; wishes, therefore, to
receive official information from the parliamentary authorities on any action taken to this effect;
6. Remains deeply concerned about the alleged serious violations of the right to a fair trial in
proceedings initiated against the parliamentarians, as well as the other persons arrested in Arua
in 2018, and about the nature and severity of the charge of treason, which carries the death
penalty, especially in view of the allegations that it is unsupported by evidence and the facts at
hand; regrets that, one year after the facts, the accused were subject to a set of additional
charges in relation to the same events, including the charge of intent to annoy, alarm or ridicule
the President with significant repercussions for free speech for the parliamentarians concerned;
considers that, while fully adhering to the democratic principles of separation of powers and the
independence of the judiciary, the sub judice rule cannot be invoked as an obstacle to justice or
accountability and that parliament is responsible for helping to ensure that all state institutions,
including the judiciary, fully abide by the rule of law; urges, therefore, parliament to take all
necessary measures to ensure strict respect for due process guarantees in ongoing proceedings
against parliamentarians; requests the parliamentary authorities to keep the IPU informed of any
relevant developments in this regard and on any action taken by parliament to this end;
7. Is deeply concerned about the steps taken to allegedly prevent Mr. Kyagulanyi from conveying
his political message, which run counter to his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
assembly; urges the authorities, therefore, to lift the restrictions imposed on him and to do
everything possible to allow him full enjoyment of his right to freedom of expression as a
parliamentarian or a singer and to meet and interact with his supporters;
8. Reiterates its wish to mandate a trial observer to monitor the upcoming court proceedings
against the members of parliament; and requests the authorities to inform the IPU of the dates
of the trials when available and of any other relevant judicial developments in the case;
9. Urges all sides to refrain from violence and also the relevant authorities to take all necessary
measures to protect human life, to respect people’s right to peaceful assembly, to take part in
the conduct of public affairs, to vote and be elected, and to have equal access to elective office
in view of the general elections to take place in 2021 in Uganda; urges in this regard, the
relevant authorities to refrain from acts that could in any way undermine the civil and political
rights of the five members of parliament;
- 14 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
10. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the President, Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Attorney General and the Speaker of the Parliament of Uganda, the complainants and
any third party likely to be in a position to supply relevant information, and to proceed with all
necessary arrangements to organize the trial observation mission;
11. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.
CL/206/9/R.2 - 15 -
3 November 2020
Tanzania
Decision adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020)
Mr. Tundu Lissu (centre), reacts to supporters upon his return on 27 July 2020 to
Tanzania after three years in exile following a failed attempt on his life. STR/AFP
TZA-04 – Tundu Lissu
Alleged human rights violations
 Threats, acts of intimidation
 Arbitrary arrest and detention
 Lack of due process in proceedings against
parliamentarians
 Violation of freedom of opinion and expression
 Violation of freedom of assembly and association
 Abusive revocation or suspension of the parliamentary
mandate
A. Summary of the case
According to the complainant, Mr. Tundu Lissu, a long-
standing opposition member of parliament belonging to the
Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (CHADEMA – Party for
Democracy and Progress) has been facing regular and serious
acts of intimidation at the hands of the Government in
response to his vocal criticism.
On 7 September 2017, Mr. Lissu escaped an assassination
attempt when attackers armed with AK-47s sprayed his vehicle
with bullets outside his house in a normally heavily guarded
government housing compound in Dodoma. Mr. Lissu was shot
16 times but survived. The complainant draws attention to
several elements to suggest that the assassination attempt
was carried out with government involvement.
The complainant affirms that, in recent times, Mr. Lissu was arrested eight times and charged in court six
times for sedition and related offences in connection with public statements critical of the Government.
According to the complainant, these charges, which are still pending, violate his rights to freedom of
political association, expression and opinion, and to take part in public affairs. According to the
CASE TZA-04
United Republic of Tanzania: Parliament
affiliated to the IPU
Victim: A former opposition member of
parliament
Qualified complainant(s): Section I.1(a)
of the Committee Procedure (Annex I)
Submission of complaint: November
2019
Recent IPU decision(s): January 2020
Recent IPU mission(s): - - -
Recent Committee hearing(s): Hearing
with the complainant at the 161st
session
of the Committee (January 2020)
Recent follow-up:
- Communication from the authorities:
Letter from the Clerk of the National
Assembly (October 2020)
- Communication from the complainant:
October 2020
- Communications addressed to the
authorities: Letters addressed to the
Speaker of the National Assembly and
the Minister of Home Affairs
(September, July and February 2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainant: October 2020
- 16 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
complainant, these accusations also have to be seen in the context of undue limitations on political
opposition in and outside of the National Assembly in Tanzania and of fears of reprisals.
The complainant affirms that Mr. Lissu was wrongfully stripped of his parliamentary mandate in June
2019, largely on grounds related to his absence from the National Assembly, even though the authorities
and the public knew that he was out of the country recovering from the shooting.
In early 2020, Mr. Lissu, after having undergone 24 surgical interventions in Kenya and Belgium, was
declared sufficiently well enough to return home. However, according to the complainant, after he
made public his intention to return home, death threats made by persons known to be connected to
the country’s intelligence and security apparatus started to appear on social media and in the press.
Mr. Lissu travelled back to Tanzania on 27 July 2020. According to the complainant, since his return,
Mr. Lissu has received numerous credible threats to his life and person, including threats of arrest from
government officials and threats of murder through poisoning, which have all gone unpunished. As part
of this context of intimidation, on the night of 13 August 2020, the CHADEMA headquarters in Arusha
was reportedly firebombed and, a few hours later, the convoy in which Mr. Lissu was travelling was
attacked with stones. The complainant affirms that there were a dozen police officers in two vehicles in
the surrounding areas who took no steps to prevent the attack. Moreover, according to the complainant,
on 25 August 2020, when Mr. Lissu was at the National Electoral Commission’s premises in order to
submit his file as a presidential candidate, unidentified persons in three vehicles reportedly planned to
abduct him when he left the Commission’s premises. They were allegedly all armed and were reported
to be police or intelligence officers. The complainant affirms that the relevant authorities have been
informed of these life-threatening reports, but that no investigations have been launched to date. On
6 October 2020, Mr. Lissu, on the way to Kibaha, just outside Dar Es Salaam on the Morogoro
highway, was stopped by a heavily armed police squadron wielding automatic weapons and
preventing them from continuing their journey. According to the complainant, Mr. Lissu’s convoy was
held for nine hours on the highway by the police as they were trying to prevent them from going to an
internal party meeting.
In August 2020, Mr. Lissu was officially nominated by CHADEMA as its presidential candidate in the
general election of 28 October 2020 and validated as a contender in the presidential elections by the
National Electoral Commission.
In response to several requests for information in 2020 from the IPU Secretary General to the
parliamentary authorities, the latter, through the Clerk of the National Assembly, finally responded in a
brief letter of 20 October 2020 that the alleged death threats against Mr. Lissu since his return to
Tanzania were before the courts and that the National Assembly had no mandate to interfere with
matters that fell within the ambit of the law enforcement bodies, as doing so would be against sub
judice rules. In addition, the Clerk stated that the complainant had made the allegations about
renewed threats almost a year after Mr. Lissu had been stripped of his parliamentary seat in
accordance with the Tanzanian Constitution and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly. In this
context, the Clerk stated that parliament had no authority to involve itself in such allegations.
B. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Notes that the complaint concerning the situation of Mr. Tundu Lissu, a member of the
Tanzanian National Assembly at the time of the initial allegations, was declared admissible by
the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians under its procedure (January 2020);
2. Thanks the parliamentary authorities for their communication; regrets nevertheless that it does not
effectively address the serious concerns at hand in this case;
3. Is extremely concerned about the attempt on Mr. Lissu’s life, which he survived by pure miracle,
and the allegation that the crime was reportedly carried out with the support of the authorities;
points out in this regard that the complainant affirms that Mr. Lissu had previously been the direct
CL/206/9/R.2 - 17 -
3 November 2020
target of serious threats and intimidation by the Government, that the armed guards normally
present at the location where the shooting took place allegedly happened to be off duty that day
and that CCTV footage of the crime reportedly disappeared soon after; is concerned that the
absence of any indication that a proper investigation is ongoing, more than three years after the
crime, lends credence to the allegations by the complainant in this regard; considers that, in light
of the failed attempt on Mr. Lissu’s life and the apparent lack of any proper investigation, the
continued stream of alleged threats against him, including after his return to Tanzania, have to be
taken extremely seriously;
4. Urges, therefore, the relevant authorities to carry out diligent and effective investigations, as is
their duty, into the assassination attempt and the alleged death threats and other forms of
intimidation that have followed since and to provide, as a matter of urgency, information on steps
taken to this end; recognizes that responsibility for the investigations falls first and foremost to the
law enforcement and judicial authorities and that adhering to the democratic principles of
separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary is crucial; considers, nevertheless,
that the sub judice rule cannot be invoked as an obstacle to justice or accountability and that
parliament is responsible for helping to ensure that all state institutions, including the judiciary,
fully abide by the rule of law; urges, therefore, the National Assembly to take all necessary
measures to ensure strict respect for due process guarantees in ongoing proceedings against
current and former parliamentarians; wishes to be kept informed of any action taken by the
National Assembly to this end;
5. Is troubled to learn that Mr. Lissu was stripped of his parliamentary mandate when it was clear
that he was absent for obvious reasons, of which the parliamentary authorities and the public at
large were well aware; considers that, in implementing the rules governing absence from the
National Assembly, in a situation of this nature the latter should have provided the necessary
flexibility to allow Mr. Lissu to keep his seat, if only out of sympathy for what had happened to him;
6. Is concerned about the allegation that Mr. Lissu was arrested several times and remains subject
to several criminal proceedings that may run counter to his basic human rights; notes that these
proceedings have to be seen in the context of international reports of undue restrictions to the
rights to freedom of expression and assembly in Tanzania and in the context of the recent
presidential elections in which Mr. Lissu was a contender; wishes to receive detailed official
information on the factual and legal basis for each of these steps against him;
7. Considers that an IPU on-site mission to Tanzania may offer a useful opportunity to discuss and
clarify the important concerns that have arisen in this case with the executive, parliamentary
and judicial authorities, as well as with any third party able to help it to advance towards the
satisfactory settlement of the case at hand; requests the Secretary General to submit this
suggestion to the new parliamentary authorities with a view to organizing the said mission once
the necessary health and security conditions have been met; trusts that they will respond
favourably to this suggestion;
8. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the parliamentary and other relevant
national authorities, the complainant and any interested third party likely to be in a position to
supply relevant information to assist it in its work;
9. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.
- 18 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
Zimbabwe
Decision adopted by consensus by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020) 1
Joana Mamombe © Women’s Academy for Leadership
and Political Excellence (WALPE)
ZWE-45 – Joana Mamombe
Alleged human rights violations
 Abduction
 Torture, ill-treatment and other acts of violence
 Arbitrary arrest and detention
 Violation of freedom of opinion and expression
 Violation of freedom of assembly and association
A. Summary of the case
Ms. Joana Mamombe is a member of the Parliament of
Zimbabwe and belongs to the opposition party Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC Alliance).
According to the complainant, at around 2 p.m. on
Wednesday, 13 May 2020, Ms. Mamombe and two other
young women leaders, namely Ms. Cecilia Chimbiri and
Ms. Netsai Marova, were abducted, tortured and sexually
abused by suspected state security agents.
The complainant states that the three women were intercepted
at a police roadblock manned by members of the Zimbabwe
Republic Police and the Zimbabwe National Army in Harare.
They were reportedly informed that they had been arrested for
taking part in a peaceful flash demonstration in Warren Park in
Harare on 13 May 2020 while the country was in lockdown due
to COVID-19. On that day, Ms. Mamombe had led a flash
protest with other young leaders over a lack of social safety nets for the poor in Zimbabwe in light of the
pandemic.
1 The delegation of Zimbabwe expressed its reservations regarding the decision.
Case ZWE-45
Zimbabwe: Parliament affiliated to the
IPU
Victim: female, opposition member of the
Parliament of Zimbabwe
Qualified complainant: Section I.1(d) of
the Committee Procedure (Annex I)
Submission of complaint: May 2020
Recent IPU decision(s): May 2020
Recent IPU Mission(s): - - -
Recent Committee hearing(s): - - -
Recent follow-up:
- Communication from the authorities:
Letter from the Speaker of the National
Assembly (August 2020)
- Communication from the complainant:
October 2020
- Communication addressed to the
authorities: Letter to the Speaker of the
National Assembly (August 2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainant: October 2020
CL/206/9/R.2 - 19 -
3 November 2020
According to the complainant, after being intercepted, Ms. Mamombe and the two other young women
leaders were taken to Harare Central Police Station. Before they could be formally charged, they were
taken to an undisclosed destination, where they were subjected to intense torture and degrading
treatment. According to the complainant, the three suffered serious sexual abuse, as specified in detail
in the complaint. According to the complainant, the three women were abandoned near Bindura at
around 9 p.m. on Thursday, 14 May 2020. They were finally rescued at around 2 a.m. on Friday,
15 May 2020, by a team of family members and lawyers.
According to the complainant, petitions regarding these abuses have been submitted to Zimbabwe’s
Gender Commission, Human Rights Commission and the National Peace and Reconciliation
Commission. The complainant affirms that these petitions have been copied to the Ministry of Justice,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the Parliament of Zimbabwe.
Ms. Mamombe and her two colleagues were again arrested on 10 June 2020, accused of fabricating
and making false statements about their abduction, and of orchestrating the incident to cast the
Government in a bad light. The women were later freed on bail after widespread international
campaigns for their release. However, the complainant contends that Ms. Mamombe and her two
colleagues’ rights were severely restricted as part of the conditions of bail.
Ms. Mamombe was reportedly briefly arrested again on 31 July 2020, in the context of the organization
of mass protests. Ms. Mamombe was allegedly arrested again on 15 September while she was in
hospital receiving mental health treatment: the complainant specifies that she was arrested on the
grounds that she had failed to appear for trial, despite the fact that her lawyers had provided testimonies
from medical experts stating that she was unable to stand trial for health reasons. The complainant
asserts that Ms. Mamombe was subsequently detained for nearly two weeks at the Chikurubi detention
facility on the order of Harare magistrate Ms. Bianca Makwande, in order to have two state doctors
establish her fitness to stand trial. It was reported that, in early October 2020, the High Court ordered the
release of the member of parliament, ruling that it was not necessary for her to be remanded in custody
for the purpose of the examination.
The complainant states that Ms. Mamombe is one of the main young women leaders in Zimbabwe and
the youngest in parliament. Over the past two years she has been very vocal and outspoken over
deteriorating economic conditions in Zimbabwe and their effect on women and girls. According to the
complainant, her situation should also be seen in the context of the rising number of cases of human
rights abuses against human rights defenders and activists in recent years in Zimbabwe.
B. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Notes that the complaint concerning the situation of Ms. Joana Mamombe, a member of the
Parliament of Zimbabwe at the time of the initial allegations, was declared admissible by the
Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians under its procedure (May 2020);
2. Thanks the Speaker of the Parliament of Zimbabwe for the information provided in his letters of
27 August 2020; notes that the Speaker stated in his letter that the principle of sub judice limits
parliament’s possibilities of engaging for the resolution of this case;
3. Considers, however, that the sub judice rule cannot be invoked as an obstacle to justice or
accountability and that parliament is responsible for helping to ensure that all state institutions
fully abide by the rule of law, including the judiciary; urges, therefore, parliament to take all
necessary measures to help ensure strict respect for due process guarantees in ongoing
proceedings against parliamentarians; requests parliament to keep the Committee informed of
action taken to this end;
4. Is extremely concerned about the allegations that Ms. Mamombe and two of her young female
colleagues were arbitrarily detained and subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment, including sexual abuse; considers that such allegations have to be taken extremely
- 20 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
seriously given reports of the widespread use of abductions, torture and sexual abuse against
opposition members and their supporters, the prevalence of gender-based violence in
Zimbabwe and the gravity of the allegations in this case;
5. Is shocked to learn that, following the Committee’s decision to declare the case admissible on
29 May 2020, Ms. Mamombe was arrested and imprisoned on accusations that she had made
false statements regarding her abduction and torture; is troubled to learn from the complainant
that, since her release on bail, Ms. Mamombe’s rights have been severely restricted under the
conditions of her bail; is also concerned about allegations that she has been re-arrested several
times since her release on bail; wishes to receive detailed observations from the authorities on
each of these points;
6. Is particularly concerned that, in the absence of information to that effect, the complaints to the
relevant national institutions have allegedly not set in motion diligent investigations to identify
the culprits of Ms. Mamombe’s abduction and torture;
7. Calls on the Zimbabwean authorities to do everything possible to ensure that the rights of
Ms. Mamombe are protected and that a full, independent and effective investigation is carried
out into the very serious alleged human rights violations referred to in this case; wishes to be
kept informed as a matter of urgency of progress made in the investigations;
8 Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the parliamentary authorities, other
relevant national authorities, the complainant and any third party likely to be in a position to
supply relevant information;
9. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.
CL/206/9/R.2 - 21 -
3 November 2020
Brazil
Decision adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020)
Brazilian member of parliament David Miranda of the Socialism and Freedom
Party (PSOL) poses during an interview with AFP at his office of the National
Congress in Brasilia, on 5 November 2019. Sergio LIMA/AFP
BRA-15 – David Miranda
Alleged human rights violations
 Threats, acts of intimidation
 Violation of freedom of opinion and expression
 Impunity
 Other violations: Discrimination
A. Summary of the case
Mr. David Michael dos Santos Miranda is a member of the
Chamber of Deputies representing the state of Rio de Janeiro,
sworn in on 1 February 2019 to replace Mr. Jean Wyllys, who
was forced to go into exile in January 2019. Mr. Miranda is a
member of the opposition left-wing Socialism and Liberty Party
(Partido Socialismo e Liberdade – PSOL).
Mr. Miranda is a strong advocate for the human rights of
minorities. He is one of the first openly gay congressmen in
Brazil and a high-profile defender of equality and inclusion. He
is a well-known advocate for LGBTI2 rights and has led efforts
to fight homophobic discrimination and violence in Brazil.
The complainant claims that Mr. Miranda has been repeatedly
harassed and denigrated by conservative political forces, and
that, since he replaced his exiled colleague, the threats against
Mr. Miranda and his family and the hostility towards the LGBTI
community, have gained in intensity and scale. According to the
complainant, the nature of the threats and the identity of the
perpetrators are largely identical to those in the case of Mr. Wyllys.
2 LGBTI stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex.
Case BRA-15
Brazil: Parliament affiliated to the IPU
Victim: Male opposition member of
parliament
Qualified complainant: Section I.(1)(a) of
the Committee Procedure (Annex I)
Submission of complaint: September
2020
Recent IPU decision(s): - - -
Recent IPU mission(s): - - -
Recent Committee hearing(s): - - -
Recent follow-up:
- Communication from the authorities:
- - -
- Communication from the complainant:
September 2020
- Communication addressed to the
authorities: Letter addressed to the
President of the IPU Group (October
2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainant: September 2020
- 22 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
In January 2019, Mr. Wyllys decided to give up his parliamentary seat and to go into exile, following
repeated death threats and the alleged failure by the Brazilian authorities to offer adequate protection
and to take effective action to investigate the threats, with the aim of holding those responsible to
account. Another crucial event that allegedly led to Mr. Wyllys’ decision was the assassination in
March 2018 of Ms. Marielle Franco, a local female council member from the state of Rio de Janeiro.
Ms. Franco was a close friend of both Mr. Wyllys and Mr. Miranda, who also vocally and actively
advocated for greater respect for LGBTI rights.
B. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Notes that the complaint concerning the case of Mr. David Miranda is admissible, given that the
complaint: (i) was submitted in due form by a qualified complainant under Section I.1(a) of the
Procedure for the examination and treatment of complaints (Annex I of the Revised Rules and
Practices of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians); (ii) concerns an
incumbent parliamentarian at the time of the initial allegations; and (iii) concerns allegations of
threats, acts of intimidation, violations of freedom of opinion and expression, impunity and
discrimination, allegations that fall within the Committee’s mandate;
2. Is deeply concerned at the alleged credible death threats and harassment targeting Mr. Miranda
due to his political opinions and his sexual orientation, and the allegation that his complaints
about these incidents have not been examined; urges the competent authorities to make every
effort, as is their duty, to identify the culprits and to bring them to justice, this being the only
means of preventing the recurrence of such crimes; considers that parliament has a vested
interest in using its powers to the fullest to help ensure that effective investigations into these
threats are being carried out and an adequate level of protection is offered to Mr. Miranda;
wishes, therefore, to receive official information from the parliamentary authorities on any action
taken to this effect;
3. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the competent authorities, the
complainants and any third party likely to be in a position to supply relevant information;
4. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.
CL/206/9/R.2 - 23 -
3 November 2020
Venezuela
Decision adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020)
Venezuelan National Police members stand guard outside the National
Assembly on 7 January 2020 in Caracas - Cristian HERNANDEZ/AFP
VEN-10 – Biagio Pilieri VEN-85 – Franco Casella
VEN-11 – José Sánchez Montiel VEN-86 – Edgar Zambrano
VEN-12 – Hernán Claret Alemán VEN-87 – Juan Pablo García
VEN-13 – Richard Blanco VEN-88 – Cesar Cadenas
VEN-16 – Julio Borges VEN-89 – Ramón Flores Carrillo
VEN-19 – Nora Bracho (Ms.) VEN-91 – María Beatriz Martínez (Ms.)
VEN-20 – Ismael Garcia VEN-92 – María C. Mulino de Saavedra (Ms.)
VEN-22 – Williams Dávila VEN-93 – José Trujillo
VEN-24 – Nirma Guarulla (Ms.) VEN-94 – Marianela Fernández (Ms.)
VEN-25 – Julio Ygarza VEN-95 – Juan Pablo Guanipa
VEN-26 – Romel Guzamana VEN-96 – Luis Silva
VEN-27 – Rosmit Mantilla VEN-97 – Eliezer Sirit
VEN-28 – Renzo Prieto VEN-98 – Rosa Petit (Ms.)
VEN-29 – Gilberto Sojo VEN-99 – Alfonso Marquina
VEN-30 – Gilber Caro VEN-100 – Rachid Yasbek
VEN-31 – Luis Florido VEN-101 – Oneida Guaipe (Ms.)
VEN-32 – Eudoro González VEN-102 – Jony Rahal
VEN-33 – Jorge Millán VEN-103 – Ylidio Abreu
VEN-34 – Armando Armas VEN-104 – Emilio Fajardo
VEN-35 – Américo De Grazia VEN-106 – Angel Alvarez
VEN-36 – Luis Padilla VEN-108 – Gilmar Marquez
VEN-37 – José Regnault VEN-109 – José Simón Calzadilla
VEN-38 – Dennis Fernández (Ms.) VEN-110 – José Gregorio Graterol
VEN-39 – Olivia Lozano (Ms.) VEN-111 – José Gregorio Hernández
VEN-40 – Delsa Solórzano (Ms.) VEN-112 – Mauligmer Baloa (Ms.)
VEN-41 – Robert Alcalá VEN-113 – Arnoldo Benítez
VEN-42 – Gaby Arellano (Ms.) VEN-114 – Alexis Paparoni
VEN-43 – Carlos Bastardo VEN-115 – Adriana Pichardo (Ms.)
VEN-44 - Marialbert Barrios (Ms.) VEN-116 – Teodoro Campos
VEN-45 – Amelia Belisario (Ms.) VEN-117 – Milagros Sánchez Eulate (Ms.)
VEN-46 – Marco Bozo VEN-118 – Denncis Pazos
VEN-48 – Yanet Fermin (Ms.) VEN-119 – Karim Vera (Ms.)
VEN-49 – Dinorah Figuera (Ms.) VEN-120 – Ramón López
VEN-50 – Winston Flores VEN-121 – Freddy Superlano
VEN-51 – Omar González VEN-122 – Sandra Flores-Garzón (Ms.)
VEN-52 – Stalin González VEN-123 – Armando López
- 24 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
VEN-53 – Juan Guaidó VEN-124 – Elimar Díaz (Ms.)
VEN-54 – Tomás Guanipa VEN-125 – Yajaira Forero (Ms.)
VEN-55 – José Guerra VEN-126 – Maribel Guedez (Ms.)
VEN-56 – Freddy Guevara VEN-127 – Karin Salanova (Ms.)
VEN-57 – Rafael Guzmán VEN-128 – Antonio Geara
VEN-58 – María G. Hernández (Ms.) VEN-129 – Joaquín Aguilar
VEN-59 – Piero Maroun VEN-130 – Juan Carlos Velasco
VEN-60 – Juan A. Mejía VEN-131 – Carmen María Sivoli (Ms.)
VEN-61 – Julio Montoya VEN-132 – Milagros Paz (Ms.)
VEN-62 – José M. Olivares VEN-133 – Jesus Yanez
VEN-63 – Carlos Paparoni VEN-134 – Desiree Barboza (Ms.)
VEN-64 – Miguel Pizarro VEN-135 – Sonia A. Medina G. (Ms.)
VEN-65 – Henry Ramos Allup VEN-136 – Héctor Vargas
VEN-66 – Juan Requesens VEN-137 – Carlos A. Lozano Parra
VEN-67 – Luis E. Rondón VEN-138 – Luis Stefanelli
VEN-68 – Bolivia Suárez (Ms.) VEN-139 – William Barrientos
VEN-69 – Carlos Valero VEN-140 – Antonio Aranguren
VEN-70 – Milagro Valero (Ms.) VEN-141 – Ana Salas (Ms.)
VEN-71 – German Ferrer VEN-142 – Ismael León
VEN-72 – Adriana d'Elia (Ms.) VEN-143 – Julio César Reyes
VEN-73 – Luis Lippa VEN-144 – Ángel Torres
VEN-74 – Carlos Berrizbeitia VEN-145 – Tamara Adrián (Ms.)
VEN-75 – Manuela Bolívar (Ms.) VEN-146 – Deyalitza Aray (Ms.)
VEN-76 – Sergio Vergara VEN-147 – Yolanda Tortolero (Ms.)
VEN-78 – Oscar Ronderos VEN-148 – Carlos Prosperi
VEN-79 – Mariela Magallanes (Ms.) VEN-149 – Addy Valero (Ms.)
VEN-80 – Héctor Cordero VEN-150 – Zandra Castillo (Ms)
VEN-81 – José Mendoza VEN-151 – Marco Aurelio Quiñones
VEN-82 – Angel Caridad VEN-152 – Carlos Andrés González
VEN-83 – Larissa González (Ms.) VEN-153 – Carlos Michelangeli
VEN-84 – Fernando Orozco VEN-154 – César Alonso
Alleged human rights violations
 Torture, ill-treatment and other acts of violence
 Threats, acts of intimidation
 Arbitrary arrest and detention
 Lack of due process at the investigation stage
 Excessive delays
 Violation of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression
 Violation of freedom of assembly and association
 Violation of freedom of movement
 Abusive revocation or suspension of the parliamentary
mandate
 Failure to respect parliamentary immunity
 Other acts obstructing the exercise of the parliamentary
mandate
 Impunity
 Other violations: Right to privacy
A. Summary of the case
The case concerns credible and serious allegations of human
rights violations affecting 134 parliamentarians from the
coalition of the Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (Democratic
Unity Roundtable – MUD), against the backdrop of continuous
efforts by Venezuela’s executive and judicial authorities to
undermine the functioning of the National Assembly and to
Case VEN-COLL-06
Venezuela: Parliament affiliated to the
IPU
Victims: 134 opposition members of
parliament (93 men and 41 women)
Qualified complainant: Section I.(1)(c) of
the Committee Procedure (Annex I)
Submission of initial complaint: March
2017
Recent IPU decision(s): May 2020
Recent IPU mission(s): - - -
Recent Committee hearing(s): Hearings
with members of the governing and
opposition parties at the 141st
IPU
Assembly (October 2019)
Recent follow-up:
- Communication from the authorities:
Letter from the Speaker of the National
Assembly (February 2019)
- Communication from the complainant:
September 2020
- Communications addressed to the
authorities: Letters to the President of
Venezuela (February and August 2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainant: September 2020
CL/206/9/R.2 - 25 -
3 November 2020
usurp its powers. The MUD is opposed to President Maduro’s government and obtained a majority of
seats in the National Assembly in the parliamentary elections of 6 December 2015.
On 30 December 2015, the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of four members of parliament,
three of them from the MUD, following allegations of fraud. The National Assembly decided to
disregard the ruling, considering the allegations to be baseless, which led the Supreme Court to
declare all of the Assembly’s decisions null and void.
Almost all parliamentarians listed in the present case have been attacked or otherwise intimidated with
impunity by law enforcement officers and/or pro-government officials and supporters during
demonstrations, inside parliament and/or at their homes. Protests intensified in Venezuela after
President Maduro announced the convening of a national constituent assembly – which was
subsequently established on 30 July 2017 – to rewrite the Constitution, but which instead has since
appropriated and exercised many of the constitutional functions assigned to the National Assembly,
which has not received any government funding since August 2016.
At least 11 National Assembly members were arrested and released later, reportedly due to politically
motivated legal proceedings. In all these cases, the members were detained without due respect for
the constitutional provisions on parliamentary immunity. There are also serious concerns regarding
respect for due process and their treatment in detention. People associated with opposition
parliamentarians have also been detained and harassed.
At least 17 parliamentarians have gone into exile, sought the protection of foreign embassies in
Caracas or gone into hiding due to continued harassment. Six have been barred from holding public
office and the passports of at least 13 members of parliament have been confiscated, not been
renewed, or cancelled by the authorities, reportedly as a means of pressure and to prevent them from
travelling abroad to denounce what is happening in Venezuela.
On 31 August 2020, President Maduro pardoned 110 members of the political opposition, who had
been accused of committing criminal acts. The decision implied the closure of ongoing criminal
proceedings against 23 parliamentarians listed in the present case and the release of four of them.
Nevertheless, according to the complainant, the political persecution of opposition members of
parliament continues. In his programme Con el Mazo Dando, Mr. Diosdado Cabello, President of the
National Constituent Assembly, referring to the presidential pardon decree, warned that “if these
people start tomorrow to invent again there will always be the judiciary to act". The Attorney General
has also publicly threatened to bring the beneficiaries of the presidential pardon to justice again if they
"re-offend" in an alleged crime similar to the one that led to their prosecution.
In its resolution 42/25 of 27 September 2019, the United Nations Human Rights Council established
an independent fact-finding mission on Venezuela, the final report of which was published in
September 2020. Among other findings, the report states that there were reasonable grounds to
believe that the following crimes against humanity were committed in Venezuela: murder,
imprisonment and other severe deprivations of physical liberty, torture, rape and other forms of sexual
violence, enforced disappearance of persons, and other inhumane acts of a similar nature intentionally
causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. Some of the same
conduct may also constitute the crime against humanity of persecution, as defined by the Rome
Statute. The mission also had reasonable grounds to believe that the President, the Minister of
People’s Power for Interior Relations, Justice and Peace and the Minister for Defence ordered or
contributed to the commission of the crimes documented in the report and, having the effective ability
to do so, failed to take preventive and repressive measures. According to the mission report,
opposition parliamentarians became a focus of repression after the opposition won a majority of seats
in the National Assembly.
Parliamentary elections are scheduled to take place on 6 December 2020. According to the
complainant, in the lead-up to the elections, the Supreme Court has adopted a number of decisions
that remove minimum guarantees for a free and fair parliamentary election, including by appointing
new leaders subordinate to Mr. Maduro on the main opposition political parties, appointing the board
of directors of the National Electoral Council which, according to the Constitution, is the exclusive
responsibility of the National Assembly, and granting powers to the National Electoral Council to
legislate on electoral matters, which also violates the Venezuelan Constitution. For its part, the
- 26 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
National Electoral Council has increased the number of members of parliament to be elected,
disregarding the constitutional provisions on the matter, and imposed extremely complex processes
for validation of political parties, after which very few parties have been able to register for the
elections. It should also be noted that the complainant has repeatedly pointed out that the composition
of the current National Electoral Council and the Supreme Court, which both have important powers
regarding electoral matters, is severely flawed and totally subject to executive control.
Long-standing efforts since 2013 to send a delegation of the Committee on the Human Rights of
Parliamentarians to Venezuela have failed in the absence of clear and decisive cooperation from the
Government to welcome and work with the delegation. In October 2018, the IPU governing bodies
decided that the mission would be of a joint nature, comprising members of the IPU Executive
Committee and the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians, and focusing on both the
larger political matters at stake in the Venezuelan crisis and the specific concerns expressed by the
Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians.
B. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Denounces the extensive repression to which the authorities and their supporters have resorted
over the last five years against parliamentarians because of their political opinions, as attested
by the continuous extremely serious incidents of ill-treatment, harassment, threats and
stigmatization carried out by state agents, paramilitary groups and violent groups of government
supporters in a climate of impunity; also denounces the multiple steps taken by the executive
and judicial authorities over the course of the current legislature to undermine the integrity and
independence of the National Assembly; considers that this situation taken as a whole amounts
to a clear attempt to thwart the effective exercise of the will of the people as expressed in the
election results of December 2015; recalls that members of parliament must be free to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas without fear of reprisal, and that parliament can fulfil its
democratic role only if its members enjoy the right to freedom of expression and are able to
speak on behalf of the people they represent;
2. Urges once again, the authorities to put an immediate end to all forms of harassment against
members of the National Assembly, to ensure that all relevant state authorities respect their
human rights and parliamentary immunity, to fully investigate and establish accountability for
reported violations of their rights, and to allow the National Assembly and all its members to
carry out their constitutional functions in full;
3. Takes note with deep concern of the findings and recommendations contained in the recently
published mission report of the United Nations Human Rights Council independent international
fact-finding mission on Venezuela, which gives further weight to the accusations of political
repression and the responsibility of the State at the highest level; expresses its firm hope, in this
regard, that the State of Venezuela, with the support of the international community, will be able
to address the extremely serious violations and crimes documented in the report;
4. Deeply regrets that the Government of Venezuela has still failed to offer any assurances in
writing that the long-proposed IPU mission to Venezuela can finally take place; remains
convinced that such a mission could help address the concerns at hand; requests, once again,
therefore, the Secretary General to work with the parliamentary and executive authorities of
Venezuela with a view to the mission taking place as soon as the COVID-19 pandemic-related
travel restrictions are lifted, on the basis of a written official communication on their part
guaranteeing that such a mission can take place under the conditions required for it to be
effective;
5. Reaffirms, once again, its view that the issues in the cases at hand are part of the larger political
crisis in Venezuela, which can only be solved through political dialogue and by the Venezuelans
themselves; reaffirms the IPU’s readiness to assist in any efforts aimed at strengthening
CL/206/9/R.2 - 27 -
3 November 2020
democracy in Venezuela; and requests the relevant authorities to provide further official
information on how this assistance can best be provided;
6. Solemnly affirms, in keeping with the letter and spirit of the IPU Universal Declaration on
Democracy, that the key element in the exercise of democracy is the holding of free and fair
elections enabling the people's will to be expressed, on the basis of universal, equal and secret
suffrage so that all voters can choose their representatives in conditions of equality, openness
and transparency; expresses its deep concern, therefore, that the restrictions in place and the
institutional framework governing the legislative elections scheduled for December 2020 appear
to seriously undermine the level playing field required for opposition members and their
supporters to exercise their basic human right to take part in the conduct of public affairs on a
par with the ruling party and its supporters; urges, in this regard, the relevant authorities to take
all necessary measures to address these matters without delay;
7. Urges all sides to refrain from violence and also the relevant authorities to take all necessary
measures to protect human life, to respect people’s rights to peaceful assembly, to freedom of
expression, to take part in the conduct of public affairs, to vote and be elected, and to have
equal access to elective office in view of the parliamentary elections to take place in December
2020 in Venezuela; urges, in this regard, the relevant authorities to refrain from acts that could
in any way undermine the rights of all current members of the National Assembly;
8. Calls on all IPU Member Parliaments, IPU permanent observers, parliamentary assemblies and
relevant human rights organizations to take concrete actions in support of the urgent resolution
of the individual cases at hand and the political crisis in Venezuela in a manner consistent with
democratic and human rights values; and hopes to be able to rely on the assistance of all
relevant regional and international organizations;
9. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the relevant authorities, the
complainant and any third party likely to be in a position to supply relevant information;
10. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.
- 28 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
Mongolia
Decision adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020)
© Zorig Foundation
MNG-01 – Zorig Sanjasuuren
Alleged human rights violations
 Murder
 Impunity
A. Summary of the case
Mr. Zorig Sanjasuuren (“Mr. Zorig”) was assassinated on
2 October 1998. Regarded by many as the father of the
democratic movement in Mongolia in the 1990s, Mr. Zorig was a
member of parliament and acting Minister of Infrastructure at the
time and was being considered as a candidate for the position of
Prime Minister on the day he was killed.
Between 2015 and 2017, three suspects were identified,
arrested, expeditiously tried and sentenced based on classified
evidence, during trials held behind closed doors. Several reports
indicated that the suspects were allegedly tortured to make false
confessions and framed by the intelligence services. The murder
of Mr. Zorig is widely believed to have been a political
assassination that was covered up. The investigation into the
mastermind(s) of his murder is still open and has not yielded any
results yet.
Despite the governmental declassification order of the files
relating to the Zorig case in December 2017, the lack of
transparency is still prevalent, as the court verdicts have
remained inaccessible.
Since the submission of the complaint 20 years ago, the
Committee has undertaken three fact-finding missions to Mongolia
at crucial phases in the case. In June 2019, the Committee returned to Mongolia following the invitation
of the parliamentary authorities and was updated on the important developments in the case, in
particular the release of a video in March 2019 showing the torture and ill-treatment of two of the
Case MNG-01
Mongolia: Parliament affiliated to the IPU
Victim: Member of the majority
Qualified complainant: Section I.1.(a) of
the Committee Procedure (Annex I)
Submission of complaints: October
2000, March 2001, September 2015
Recent IPU decision(s): October 2019
Recent IPU Mission(s): August 2001,
September 2015, September 2017, June
2019
Recent Committee hearing(s): Hearing
with the Mongolian delegation to the 141st
IPU Assembly (October 2019)
Recent follow up:
- Communications from the authorities:
Letter from the Vice-Chairman of the
State Great Hural (September 2020);
letter from the Chairman of the Ad Hoc
Committee (October 2019)
- Communications from the complainant:
August 2020
- Communications addressed to the
authorities: Letter addressed to the
Vice-Chairman of the State Great Hural
(September 2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainant: September 2020
CL/206/9/R.2 - 29 -
3 November 2020
convicts, Ms. Chimgee and Mr. Sodnomdarjaa, as well as the establishment of a parliamentary ad hoc
committee on the case of Mr. Zorig. The two convicts in question were transferred to the prison hospital
as a result of the video and a criminal case was opened against intelligence and law enforcement
officials allegedly responsible for torturing them. Nevertheless, they are still being held in detention.
As part of its findings, the delegation welcomed the establishment of an ad hoc committee on the Zorig
case (the Ad Hoc Committee), in line with the IPU Committee’s recommendations. It also welcomed
the opportunity to meet with the three convicts, as well as to watch the video tape showing alleged
acts of torture and ill-treatment. However, the delegation failed to understand the reasons preventing
the immediate release of Ms. Chimgee and Mr. Sodnomdarjaa given the recent turn of events.
On 22 July 2020, the Ulaanbaatar Court of First Instance concluded that Ms. Chimgee and
Mr. Sodnomdarjaa had been tortured during the investigation into the murder of Mr. Zorig and
convicted the former Chief of the General Intelligence Agency, Mr. Bat Khurts, as well as other
intelligence officers to prison terms ranging from one to three years’ imprisonment. The release of
Ms. Chimgee and Mr. Sodnomdarjaa was contingent upon the confirmation of their torture and the
conviction of those responsible. However, the complainants explained that the defendants appealed
the court’s decision. The appeal proceedings could last until the end of 2020. Only then could
Ms. Chimgee and Mr. Sodnomdarjaa be released if the court of appeal decides to uphold the decision
of the first-instance court and orders a retrial. In their letter of 18 September 2020, the parliamentary
authorities confirmed that Ms. Chimgee and Mr. Sodnomdarjaa had not been released as court
proceedings were still ongoing.
Following the parliamentary elections that took place in Mongolia in June 2020, the Ad Hoc Committee
on the Zorig case was dissolved.
In its letter of 18 September 2020, the State Great Hural stated that, upon receiving the recent
Committee’s mission report in October 2019, it translated it into Mongolian and delivered it to the
relevant authorities. The State Great Hural added that the relevant authorities had yet to inform it of
any actions they had taken.
B. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Thanks the Mongolian parliamentary authorities for the information provided in their letter of
18 September 2020; regrets, nevertheless, the lack of response regarding the Committee’s
mission report of June 2019; further reiterates its wish to be kept regularly apprised of all
developments related to the case;
2. Urges once more the authorities to take appropriate measures to implement the findings and
recommendations of the mission report, including the immediate release of Ms. Chimgee and
Mr. Sodnomdarjaa; further urges the authorities to seriously consider abandoning the legal
proceedings against them, while ensuring that the persons responsible for their wrongful
conviction are held to account; renews its call for the authorities to provide copies of all the court
verdicts in this case;
3. Firmly reiterates that any further delays in establishing the identity of those responsible for
murdering Mr. Zorig, including the mastermind(s), are unacceptable; urges the authorities to
make more robust efforts to an effective investigation into establishing the identity of those
accountable for this crime and to make information regularly available to the public at large on
progress; considers in this regard that only full transparency can turn the tide of mistrust and
secrecy that has come to define this murder case;
4. Stresses that parliamentary oversight remains crucial towards helping ensure that justice finally
prevails in this case; calls on the State Great Hural to set up again the Ad Hoc Committee on
the Zorig case to continue monitoring the ongoing investigation into the mastermind(s) and the
judicial proceedings relating to the torture of the two convicts;
- 30 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
5. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the relevant authorities, the
complainant and any third party likely to be in a position to supply relevant information;
6. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.
CL/206/9/R.2 - 31 -
3 November 2020
Philippines
Decision adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020)
Philippine Senator Leila de Lima is escorted by police after her arrest
at the Senate in Manila on 24 February 2017 © Ted Aljibe/AFP
PHL-08 – Leila de Lima
Alleged human rights violations
 Threats, acts of intimidation
 Arbitrary arrest and detention
 Lack of due process in proceedings against
parliamentarians
 Violation of freedom of opinion and expression
A. Summary of the case
Ms. Leila de Lima served as Chairperson of the Philippines
Commission on Human Rights from May 2008 to June 2010.
In that capacity, she led a series of investigations into alleged
extrajudicial killings linked to the so-called Davao Death Squad
in Davao City, where Mr. Duterte had been long-time mayor,
and concluded that Mr. Duterte, now President of the
Philippines, was behind the Davao Death Squad.
In 2010, Ms. de Lima was appointed Secretary of Justice. She
resigned from this position in October 2015 to focus on her
campaign for a senate seat in the May 2016 elections, a bid
that was successful. In August 2016, as Chair of the Senate
Committee on Justice and Human Rights, she launched an
inquiry into the killings of thousands of alleged drug users and
drug dealers, which are alleged to have taken place since
President Duterte took office in June 2016. Since becoming
senator, she has been the target of acts of intimidation and
denigration, including by President Duterte himself.
Senator de Lima was arrested and detained on 24 February
2017 over accusations of receiving drug money to finance her
senatorial campaign for a senate seat. The charges, in three
different cases, were brought in the wake of an inquiry by the House of Representatives into drug
Case PHL-08
Philippines: Parliament affiliated to the IPU
Victim: Female opposition member of
parliament
Qualified complainant(s): Section I.(1)(d)
of the Committee Procedure (Annex I)
Submission of complaint: September
2016
Recent IPU decision(s): April 2019
Recent IPU mission(s): May 2017
Recent Committee hearing(s): - - -
Recent follow-up:
- Communication from the authorities:
Letter from the Director General and
Secretary of the IPU Group of the
Philippines (April 2019)
- Communication from the complainant:
October 2020
- Communication addressed to the
authorities: Letter addressed to the
President of the Senate (September
2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainant: October 2020
- 32 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
trading in New Bilibid Prison, and Senator de Lima’s responsibility for such while she was Secretary of
Justice. The House-led inquiry was launched one week after she initiated her inquiry in the Senate into
the extrajudicial killings.
On 27 July and 10 August 2018, Senator de Lima was indicted in two of the three cases that are
currently before Branches 205 and 256 of the Regional Trial Court – Muntinlupa City. While the third
case has gone on intermittently due to vacancies in court, with the trial having resumed only on
9 October 2020, hearings to present prosecution witnesses in the two other cases before Regional
Trial Court Branch 205, mostly involving convicted drug traffickers, were scheduled well into 2020,
with twice-monthly hearings scheduled in each case on average. It was later discovered that the
convicted drug traffickers received special treatment in prison and were coerced into testifying against
Senator de Lima after being viciously stabbed in prison in 2016. In June and August 2020, Senator de
Lima filed two motions for release on bail on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence against
her in the two cases before the court. The prosecution is likely to wrap up its work in both ongoing
cases by November 2020, with remaining hearings being accessible for remote online monitoring.
Thereafter, the court is likely to rule on the two pending motions for bail soon.
A May 2017 mission to the Philippines by the IPU Committee on the Human Rights of
Parliamentarians concluded that there was no evidence to justify the criminal cases against
Senator de Lima. Since then, the IPU has called for the release of Senator de Lima and for the case
against her to be dropped unless cogent evidence becomes available soon. On 30 November 2018,
the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that Senator de Lima’s detention
was arbitrary and that her immediate release was in order.
Although Senator de Lima has remained very politically active over the years while in detention and
receives newspapers, journals and books, she has no access to the Internet, a computer, TV, radio, or
to an air-conditioning unit despite a doctor’s recommendation. Senator de Lima was allegedly kept in
incommunicado detention from 25 April to 10 June 2020, purportedly for the purposes of stopping the
spread of Covid-19. Although the situation regarding Senator de Lima’s visiting rights has since
improved, a number of restrictions thereto remain in place.
On 27 April 2020, the Senate adopted a motion to allow teleconferencing in plenary and committee
hearings. That same day, the Senate President, however, reportedly publicly stated that Senator de
Lima would not be allowed to take part in such virtual proceedings given that the Senate has no
jurisdiction over her. According to the complainant, this is a further attempt to prevent her from fully
performing her role as Senator, despite the clear Supreme Court jurisprudence on this point.
On 7 November 2016, Senator de Lima had filed a petition for writ of habeas data against President
Duterte before the Supreme Court, requesting that the Court, inter alia, order President Duterte and
any of his representatives to cease: seeking details about her private life outside the realm of
legitimate public concern or making statements maligning her as a woman and injuring her dignity as a
human being; discriminating against her on the basis of gender; describing or publicizing her alleged
sexual conduct; engaging in psychological violence against her; and otherwise violating her rights or
engaging in acts that are contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy and/or public
interest. On 18 October 2019, the Supreme Court had dismissed the petition for writ of habeas data on
the grounds that the President is immune from suit during his incumbency and tenure.
A. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Remains deeply concerned that Senator de Lima has been in detention for three and a half
years without any serious evidence presented against her to justify the charges; recalls in this
regard the principle that justice delayed is justice denied;
2. Recalls also that there are multiple, strong signs that the steps taken against Senator de Lima
come in response to her vocal opposition to the way in which President Duterte was waging a
war on drugs, including her denunciation of his alleged responsibility for extrajudicial killings;
points out in this regard the repeated violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence,
CL/206/9/R.2 - 33 -
3 November 2020
the dubious choice of jurisdiction to present the accusations against her, the timing of the
criminal proceedings, the amendment of the charges and the reliance on testimonies of
convicted drug traffickers, who were either promised favourable treatment in return, subjected to
physical intimidation in prison, or have an axe to grind against Senator de Lima as a result of
her efforts to dismantle their drug trafficking operations when she was Secretary of Justice;
3. Renews it call, in light of the foregoing, for Senator de Lima to be released immediately and for
the legal proceedings against her to be dropped; calls on the authorities to take the necessary
action forthwith;
4. Requests that, should charges not be dropped, an IPU trial observer continue to monitor and
report on respect for fair-trial standards in the cases before Branches 205 and 256 of the
Regional Trial Court in Muntinlupa City, including in order to assess if and how existing
concerns about the legality and fairness of the proceedings are properly reviewed;
5. Regrets that it was not possible for the Supreme Court to rule on the public campaign of
vilification of Senator de Lima by the highest state authorities, thereby missing an important
opportunity to condemn and end the public degrading treatment to which she has been
subjected as a woman parliamentarian;
6. Is concerned that Senator de Lima has not been able to benefit from the Senate’s move
towards teleconferencing; considers that the parliamentary authorities can do much more to
help ensure that she can fully participate in the work of the Senate and effectively represent the
interests of the 14 million Filipinos who elected her, also bearing in mind past initiatives by the
Senate in other similar cases, well before teleconferencing was allowed; wishes to be kept
informed on this point;
7. Is concerned about limitations imposed on Senator de Lima’s visiting rights and continued lack
of access to the Internet, TV, radio, tablet or laptop; regrets furthermore that the authorities
have also yet to provide her with an air-conditioning unit, as ordered by her doctor; sincerely
hopes that the relevant authorities will take the necessary steps to address these matters for as
long as she remains in detention; and wishes to be kept informed in this regard;
8. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the relevant authorities, including the
Secretary of Justice, the Prosecutor’s Office and the relevant courts, the complainant and any
third party likely to be in a position to supply relevant information;
9. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.
- 34 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
Belarus
Decision adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020)
BLR-05 – Victor Gonchar
Alleged human rights violations
 Enforced disappearance
 Impunity
A. Summary of the case
Mr. Victor Gonchar disappeared in September 1999, along
with Mr. Anatoly Krasovsky. Mr. Gonchar had been the
Deputy Speaker of the 13th Supreme Soviet and a major
political opponent of the President of Belarus, Mr. Aleksandr
Lukashenko. He was the third prominent opposition figure in
Belarus to have “disappeared” since April 1999.
Mr. Gonchar was expected to play a leading role in the talks
organized by the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe between the opposition and President
Lukashenko. At the time of his disappearance, he was due
to chair an extended parliamentary session which could
have set in motion the process to impeach the President.
Allegations have been made attributing his "disappearance"
to State-run death squads known as SOBR (special rapid
response unit) on the personal order of the former Minister of
the Interior and of the Secretary General of the Belarusian
Security Council. Official investigations have proved unavailing. Key officials suspected of involvement
were never questioned and were subsequently promoted.
A report on disappearances in Belarus issued in February 2004 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe concluded that no proper investigation had been conducted, and that senior state
officials may be implicated in the disappearances of several opposition figures, including Mr. Gonchar.
Case BLR-05
Belarus: Parliament affiliated to the IPU
Victim: Male opposition member of parliament
Qualified complainant(s): Section I.(1)(a) of
the Committee Procedure (Annex I)
Submission of complaint: August 1998
Recent IPU decision(s): February 2019
Recent IPU mission(s): November 1999
Recent Committee hearing(s): - - -
Recent follow-up:
- Communications from the authorities:
Letters from the Chairman of the Committee
on National Security of the House of
Representatives dated July 2012 and
January 2013
- Interview with sources: July 2020
- Communication from the complainant:
August 2020
- Communication addressed to the
authorities: Letter addressed to the
Chairman of the House of Representatives
(October 2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainant: August 2020
CL/206/9/R.2 - 35 -
3 November 2020
The report mentioned numerous pieces of evidence pointing towards the involvement of the State in
the disappearance, including evidence that a gun used for carrying out the death penalty against
Mr. Gonchar was signed out by order of the Minister of the Interior on the date of Mr. Gonchar’s
disappearance. The authorities objected to the report's conclusions.
In March 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Committee also concluded, in the case of the
enforced disappearance of Mr. Krasovsky, that Belarus had violated its obligations to investigate
properly and take appropriate remedial action. It requested Belarus to provide the victims with an
effective remedy, including a thorough and diligent investigation into the disappearance and
prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators. No implementation measures have been taken by the
authorities.
No information from the Parliament of Belarus or from the judicial authorities has been forthcoming
since January 2012. Meetings with the leader of the Belarus delegation to the 132nd IPU Assembly
(Hanoi, March–April 2015) and between the IPU President and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives (September 2015) have been inconclusive, as the authorities have continued to
affirm that the investigation was ongoing and confidential and that they did not need assistance. They
have failed to provide any other information or to respond to the Committee’s long-standing request to
conduct a visit to Belarus.
The families and their lawyers have never been granted access to the investigation files, despite
numerous petitions. Their requests – and those of the opposition United Civil Party – for the
investigation into state officials and other leaders have remained unanswered. They had, inter alia,
asked for the Prosecutor General to take into account, and investigate, documentaries and video
testimonies aired on TV pointing to the involvement of the same top officials, in particular the
documentary "Krestny Batka" (The Nation's Godfather), aired by the Russian channel NTV in the summer
of 2010, and the important video testimony (allegedly dating from 2003 and aired in September 2018) of
Mr. Viktor Zabolotsky, a Belarusian citizen who claimed to have been near the crime scene at the time
of Mr. Gonchar’s disappearance. The complainant indicated that the families had been informed on
6 December 2018 by the investigative authorities that the investigation had been suspended, as they
had failed to identify the perpetrator, but that they would reopen it, should they identify a suspect.
However, a prominent journalism investigation story based on the accounts of Mr. Yuri Garavsky, a
new witness and self-confessed accomplice to the alleged murder of Mr. Gonchar, caused a sensation
in the country when it came out in December 2019. According to an official letter provided by the
complainant, the investigation into the disappearance of Mr. Gonchar was reopened on 24 December
2019, but was suspended once again in February 2020.
The United Nations Human Rights Council has repeatedly expressed deep concern at the continuing
violations of human rights in Belarus, which it found were of a systemic and systematic nature, as well
as at the use of torture and ill-treatment in custody, the lack of response by the Government of Belarus
to cases of enforced disappearances of political opponents, and the lack of participation of opposition
political parties in parliament. Most recently, the Council held an urgent debate on the situation in
Belarus following the presidential elections of August 2020, and adopted a resolution condemning the
reported use of violence and torture against thousands of protestors who had mobilized after the
elections over allegations of massive voter fraud.
B. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Expresses grave concern over the complete and persistent impunity in this case, over 20 years
after the disappearance of Mr. Victor Gonchar;
2. Deeply regrets the lack of cooperation from the Belarusian authorities and that the Belarusian
Parliament chose not to meet virtually with the Committee on the Human Rights of
Parliamentarians at its most recent session; recalls in this regard that the Committee’s
procedure is based on ongoing and constructive dialogue with the authorities, first and foremost
the parliament of the country concerned;
- 36 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
3. Notes with concern that, during a hearing with the Committee at its most recent session,
Mr. Yuri Garavsky provided detailed information on the circumstances surrounding the
abduction and assassination of Mr. Gonchar and Mr. Anatoly Krasovsky, including the
coordinates of the location where the bodies had allegedly been buried within the former base
compound of Begoml, by direct order of the Belarusian authorities; questions why, despite
abundant new evidence, the investigation had been allegedly suspended again in February
2020; wishes to receive official information on the current status of the investigation; and requests
the parliamentary authorities to keep the IPU informed of any relevant developments in this
regard;
4. Points out that the authorities have put forward no information to sustain their assertion that a
genuine investigation into the disappearance was conducted over the past 20 years; considers
that this gives serious weight to the mounting information and indications that have emerged
over the years pointing to the direct responsibility of the Belarusian authorities for the
disappearance of Mr. Gonchar;
5. Recalls that impunity, by shielding those responsible from judicial action and accountability,
decisively encourages the perpetration of further serious human rights violations, and that
attacks against the life of members of parliament, when left unpunished, not only violate the
fundamental rights of individual parliamentarians and of those who elected them, but also affect
the integrity of parliament and its ability to fulfil its role as an institution – even more so when
leading figures of parliament and the opposition are targeted in the context of a broader pattern
of repression, as in the present case; points out that the widespread or systematic practice of
enforced disappearance constitutes a crime against humanity; stresses the legitimate right of
the relatives of the victims to know about the fate of the disappeared persons, the
circumstances of their enforced disappearance and to receive adequate compensation;
6. Reaffirms its view that the Parliament of Belarus continues to have a direct responsibility for
ensuring that every effort is made by all relevant authorities to investigate thoroughly and
diligently the many leads and concerns that have emerged, to identify and punish those
responsible for the enforced disappearance of one of its members and to do everything possible
to ensure that such violations do not recur in the future; urges parliament to take decisive and
effective measures to this end; and wishes to be informed of progress made in this regard;
7. Deeply regrets that the long-requested mission by the Committee to Belarus to obtain first-hand
information on the investigation and any prospects for progress in this case has still not received
official endorsement from the national authorities; expresses the firm hope that parliament and
other relevant authorities will respond favourably to this request so that a Committee delegation
can travel to Belarus as soon as the COVID-19 pandemic-related travel restrictions are lifted;
8. Calls on all IPU Member Parliaments, IPU permanent observers, parliamentary assemblies and
human rights organizations active in the region to take concrete actions in support of the urgent
resolution of this case in a manner consistent with respect for democratic values and human
rights; and hopes to be able to rely on the assistance of all relevant regional and international
organizations;
9. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the relevant authorities and to any
third party likely to be in a position to supply relevant information, as well as to continue seeking
the authorities’ agreement to a visit;
10. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.
CL/206/9/R.2 - 37 -
3 November 2020
Egypt
Decision adopted by consensus by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020) 3
Mostafa al-Nagar © Photo courtesy of Belady U.S., An Island for Humanity
EGY-07 – Mostafa al-Nagar
Alleged human rights violations
 Enforced disappearance
 Threats, acts of intimidation
 Violation of freedom of opinion and expression
 Failure to respect parliamentary immunity
 Impunity
A. Summary of the case
Mr. Mostafa al-Nagar allegedly disappeared in the southern
governorate of Aswan on 27 September 2018. His family and
lawyers have been unable to contact him or obtain information on
his whereabouts. They fear that he might have been arbitrarily
arrested and held incommunicado.
The complainants allege that Mr. al-Nagar was a symbol of the
2011 revolution and a vocal critic of the Egyptian Government
during his parliamentary term, which lasted from 23 January to
14 July 2012, when the Egyptian Parliament was dissolved. In
December 2017, he was fined and sentenced to three years in
prison for "insulting the judiciary" in a speech he reportedly
delivered during a parliamentary sitting in 2012. In its ruling of
30 December 2017, the Cairo Criminal Court found that
Mr. al-Nagar’s statements at a parliamentary sitting in 2012 had
been intended to defame and harm the judiciary and judges, and
3 The Egyptian delegation expressed its reservations regarding the decision.
Case EGY-07
Egypt: Parliament affiliated to the IPU
Victim: male, independent member of the
House of Representatives
Qualified complainant(s): Section I.1.(a)
and (d) of the Committee Procedure
(Annex I)
Submission of complaint: February
2020
Recent IPU decision(s): May 2020
Recent IPU Mission(s): - - -
Recent Committee hearing(s): - - -
Recent follow-up:
- Communication from the authorities:
- - -
- Communication from the complainant:
October 2020
- Communication addressed to the
authorities: Letter addressed to the
Speaker of the House of
Representatives (September 2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainants: October 2020
- 38 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
disregarded his parliamentary immunity. Mr. al-Nagar has not served his time in prison as he has
remained in hiding, although it was clear to his family members where he was. He disappeared a few
days before his appeal trial, which took place on 15 October 2018.
The complainants reported that, on 10 October 2018, Mr. al-Nagar’s family received an anonymous
telephone call informing it that he was in police custody at Aswan's Central Security Forces Al-Shallal
camp. Despite Mr. al-Nagar's lawyer’s request to the Egyptian authorities for an official response
concerning his client’s alleged detention in the Al-Shallal camp, no information was provided in this
regard. Egypt’s State Information Service denied playing a role in Mr. al-Nagar's disappearance and
said, in an official statement issued on 18 October 2018, that he had wilfully disappeared to avoid
serving his prison sentence, accusing him of being a fugitive.
The Egyptian Court of Cassation adopted a decision on 15 October 2018, in which the Court allegedly
declared Mr. al-Nagar’s appeal inadmissible and upheld the sentence against him in abstentia because
he had not been present at the proceedings and had not complied with a 2017 imprisonment order. In its
decision, the Court of Cassation also found that it was not competent to examine the appeal, since the
appealed decision was not final, as it had not been handed down by a “last degree” court. According to
the Court of Cassation, it was still possible to challenge the 2017 decision before the Court of Appeal.
On 29 July 2019, the complainants filed a complaint at the Cairo Court of Administrative Justice against
the Egyptian Ministry of the Interior for failing to disclose Mr. al-Nagar's whereabouts and failing to make
serious efforts to locate him. In its decision handed down on 18 January 2020, the Cairo Court of
Administrative Justice recalled the State's responsibility, and indicated that the State Information Service
statement was insufficient. The Court noted that the State had a duty to locate disappeared individuals,
especially when a complaint had been filed about their disappearance. The complainants indicated that
the Egyptian authorities had not yet responded to the ruling of 18 January 2020.
During its virtual session held in October 2020, the Committee on the Human Rights of
Parliamentarians invited the Egyptian authorities for a hearing. The parliamentary authorities had
initially accepted the Committee’s invitation. However, due to the parliamentary elections, the
authorities were unable to meet with the Committee.
B. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Notes that the complaint concerning the situation of Mr. Mostafa al-Nagar, a member of the
Egyptian Parliament at the time of the initial alleged violation of his parliamentary immunity and
right to freedom of expression, was declared admissible by the Committee on the Human Rights
of Parliamentarians under its procedure on 29 May 2020;
2. Thanks the Egyptian parliamentary authorities for their willingness to meet with the Committee
for a hearing; regrets, nevertheless, that such a hearing did not take place; points out that the
Egyptian authorities have yet to share their views about the case, despite several previous
requests;
3. Is deeply concerned by the alleged disappearance of Mr. al-Nagar since 2018 and the absence
of any measures taken by the authorities to investigate his disappearance despite the
complainants’ repeated requests; questions why the Egyptian Government is unable to locate
Mr. al-Nagar considering that he was under surveillance, as alleged by the complainants;
considers that Mr. al-Nagar’s alleged disappearance should be taken seriously by the
authorities regardless of his conviction and the fact that he did not serve his prison sentence;
4. Stresses that the State of Egypt is duty-bound to do everything possible to find Mr. al-Nagar and
that by not taking any measure to locate him under the pretext that he is a fugitive, the
authorities are wilfully denying justice to his relatives, who have the legitimate right to know
about his fate, and are giving weight to the complainants’ allegations that they are partly or
CL/206/9/R.2 - 39 -
3 November 2020
wholly responsible for his disappearance; stresses that the authorities have yet to provide
convincing evidence to refute the allegation that Mr. al-Nagar is being held incommunicado;
5. Urges, therefore, the authorities, in particular the Ministry of the Interior, to take appropriate
measures to locate Mr. al-Nagar in accordance with the decision of the Administrative Court of
Justice issued in January 2020 and to start a genuine and effective investigation into his
disappearance; wishes to be kept informed as a matter of urgency about steps taken in this
regard;
6. Is concerned that Mr. al-Nagar’s conviction seemed to be in violation of his parliamentary
immunity and hindered the legitimate exercise of his parliamentary mandate; wishes to receive
copies of the decisions of the Cairo Criminal Court and Court of Cassation of 2017 and 2018
respectively;
7. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the relevant authorities, the
complainants, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of the Interior and any third party likely to be
in a position to supply relevant information on the whereabouts of Mr. al-Nagar;
8. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.
- 40 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
Palestine/Israel
Decision adopted by consensus by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020) 4
Ramallah, 15 April 2015 – Palestinian protesters wave flags bearing portraits
of Fatah leader, Marwan Barghouti, during a march to mark the anniversary of
his arrest. AFP Photo/Abbas Momani
PSE-02 – Marwan Barghouti
Alleged human rights violations
 Torture, ill-treatment and other acts of violence
 Arbitrary arrest and detention
 Lack of fair trial proceedings
A. Summary of the case
Mr. Marwan Barghouti, a member of the Palestinian
Legislative Council (PLC), was arrested on 15 April 2002
in Ramallah by the Israeli Defence Forces and
transferred to a detention facility in Israel. He was
charged with murder, attempted murder and involvement
in terrorist organizations. His trial before the Tel Aviv
District Court started on 14 August 2002 and ended on
6 June 2004, when the court sentenced him to five life
sentences and two 20-year prison terms. The
complainants have raised a series of legal objections to
Mr. Barghouti's arrest and prosecution, alleging that he
was ill-treated, especially at the start of his detention, and
was denied access to legal counsel. The Committee
appointed a legal expert and lawyer, Mr. Simon
Foreman, to report on the trial. His report states that, “the
numerous breaches of international law … make it
impossible to conclude that Mr. Barghouti was given a
fair trial”.
On 17 April 2017, Mr. Barghouti initiated a mass hunger strike, joined by more than 1,000 Palestinian
inmates, to protest against the abusive and inhumane conditions in which Palestinian inmates were
4 The delegation of Israel expressed its reservations regarding the decision.
Case PSE-02
Palestine/Israel: The Palestinian Legislative
Council and the Parliament of Israel are
affiliated to the IPU
Victim: Member of the Palestinian Legislative
Council (member of the majority)
Qualified complainant(s): Section I.(1).(b) of
the Committee Procedure (Annex I)
Submission of complaint: April 2002
Recent IPU decision(s): October 2018
Recent IPU mission(s): - - -
Recent Committee hearing(s): Hearing with
the head of the parliamentary group of Fatah at
the 137th
IPU Assembly (October 2017); hearing
with the Palestinian complainants (October
2020)
Recent follow-up:
- Communication from the authorities: Letter
from the head of the Knesset delegation to
the Inter-Parliamentary Union (October
2020);
- Communication from the complainant:
October 2020
- Communication addressed to the
authorities: Letter addressed to the Speaker
of the Knesset (September 2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainant: October 2020
CL/206/9/R.2 - 41 -
3 November 2020
allegedly being held by the Israeli authorities. The “Freedom and dignity hunger strike” reportedly
ended on 30 May 2017, as the Israeli Prison Service had agreed to grant some of the detainees’
requests. According to the information gathered during a hearing with the Palestinian complainants
held in October 2020, the strike had also been triggered by the 2017 decision of the Israeli authorities
to reduce the number of monthly visits to one instead of two visits per month. The complainants stated
that the Israeli authorities had promised to increase the number of monthly visits; however, this has
yet to be done.
In their letter of 18 October 2020, the Israeli parliamentary authorities did not provide any information
on Mr. Barghouti’s current conditions of detention, including his visiting rights.
During the hearing held with the Palestinian complainants in October 2020, the Committee on the
Human Rights of Parliamentarians gathered the information summarized below on the situation of
Mr. Marwan Barghouti and other Palestinian inmates in Israeli prisons:
- Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Barghouti has allegedly received only two visits from his
spouse in 2020. According to the complainants, Mr. Barghouti is due to receive a third family
visit in November 2020, which is facilitated by the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) – the main focal point between the Israeli authorities and the inmates’ families and the
only international organization allowed to conduct visits to Israeli prisons. Family visits are also
restricted to one relative instead of five, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and phone calls are
allegedly prohibited. Prison guards may, however, allow an inmate to have a phone call in the
event of emergencies. Nevertheless, there appears to be no consistency with respect to phone
calls, which, according to the complainants, are arbitrarily granted or refused by prison guards;
- According to the complainants, visits are restricted to spouses and first-degree relatives
(children, parents and siblings). During one visit, the Israeli authorities had promised
Mr. Barghouti’s family that he would be able to meet his eight-month-old granddaughter. The
complainants alleged that, after passing three prison gates and being only one gate away from
Mr. Barghouti, the authorities arbitrarily denied her access and refused to let her to be brought
in;
- The complainants described the last visit granted to Mr. Barghouti, which was in August 2020.
According to the complainants, before any visit could take place, the family had to receive
confirmation from the ICRC and be granted a permit to enter Israel. In August 2020, those
conditions were met and Ms. Fadwa Barghouti, his spouse, was able to visit him for 45 minutes.
The visit took place in the visiting room, where they communicated by phone in front of a glass
window separating them. The complainants added that preparing a visit was a time-consuming
process; the round trip took almost eight hours, owing to the family’s place of residence, the
location of the prison, and the number of checkpoints to cross. The complainants stated that
those conditions also applied to other inmates, and were more complicated for inmates from
Gaza. According to the complainants, the Israeli authorities purposely detained inmates in
prisons located far away from their place of residence, making it difficult for their families to visit;
- According to the complainants, detention conditions in Israeli prisons were dire. They said that
prison buildings were obsolete, with poor sanitary conditions, and that they were infested with
fleas and mosquitoes, while prison overcrowding was prevalent. The complainants alleged that
inmates were not allowed to have a fan in times of high temperatures. The same applies during
colder times, as prisons did not have central heating. Reportedly, prisoners were constantly
being moved from one prison to another, or from prison to an investigation centre or to court,
which meant that they spent several hours handcuffed inside a vehicle with aggressive and
strict guards. The complainants also alleged that there were clothes shortages in prison and
that inmates were allowed to have a new shirt only every three months. Inmates were required
to first signal their needs to the prison guard, and wait for the guard to grant the request. Once
the request was approved, inmates had to wait for a family visit before informing their relatives
of their needs. The shirt could then be provided during the following family visit. The
complainants also stated that detainees of all ages were held together, including children and
young adults. Inmates suffering from serious diseases, including cancer or diabetes were
allegedly denied appropriate medical care. The complainants also denounced Israel's overuse
of administrative detention.
- 42 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
B Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Takes note of the Israeli parliamentary authorities' letter of 18 October 2020; deeply regrets,
however, the lack of information about Mr. Barghouti's detention conditions;
2. Takes notes with grave concern that Mr. Barghouti was allegedly denied his visiting rights for
three years for allegedly taking part in the 2017 mass hunger strike; is also shocked that, after
three years without a single visit, Mr. Barghouti was only able to receive two visits from his
spouse in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic; firmly recalls that Article 37 of the United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners stipulates that "prisoners shall
be allowed … to communicate with their family and reputable friends at regular intervals, both
by correspondence and by receiving visits"; requests the relevant Israeli authorities to give
assurances that the upcoming visit scheduled for November 2020 will take place without
hindrance;
3. Strongly reaffirms its long-standing position that Mr. Barghouti’s arrest and transfer to Israeli
territory was in violation of international law; deplores his continued detention for over 18 years
following a trial that failed to meet the fair-trial standards that Israel is bound to respect as a
party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; recalls in this regard the
compelling legal arguments put forward in Mr. Foreman's report; and consequently renews its
call on the Israeli authorities to release Mr. Barghouti forthwith;
4. Is deeply concerned about the complainants' account of the detention conditions in Israeli
prisons, including the prevailing crowded conditions and the alleged obsolete state of prison
buildings; is also worried about the prohibition of phone calls and the arbitrary practice of prison
guards in this regard; urges the Israeli authorities, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and
subsequent visiting restrictions, to enable detainees to call their relatives;
5. Reiterates its long-standing wish to be granted permission to visit Mr. Barghouti; and urges the
Israeli authorities to give serious consideration to this request;
6. Questions why the Israeli authorities decided to reduce the number of visits to one visit per
month instead of the two monthly visits that were allowed until 2017; wishes to receive more
information on the reasons pertaining to this decision; also notes that, due to the COVID-19
pandemic, family visits would be limited to one person instead of five; deplores the fact that
Palestinian prisoners feel compelled to resort to hunger strikes to have their demands heard
and acted upon; and is eager to receive updated information on Mr. Barghouti’s current
conditions of detention;
7. Considers that the many national and international reports denouncing the conditions of
detention of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails should be of concern to the Knesset; reaffirms
that the Knesset can, and should, exercise its oversight function of the Israeli prison service with
regard to the treatment of Palestinian prisoners and thereby help ensure that all persons under
the jurisdiction and effective control of Israel are afforded the full enjoyment of the rights
enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; wishes to know if the
Knesset and individual members are allowed to carry out impromptu prison visits and, if so, to
receive information on the applicable legal framework;
8. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the competent authorities, the
complainant and any third party likely to be in a position to supply relevant information;
9. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report to it in due course.
CL/206/9/R.2 - 43 -
3 November 2020
Palestine/Israel
Decision adopted by consensus by the IPU Governing Council at its 206th
session
(Extraordinary virtual session, 3 November 2020) 5
Palestinian supporters of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) take
part in a protest outside the UNDP office calling for the release of Ahmad Sa’adat,
leader PFLP, in Gaza city on 29 July 2015. MAJDI FATHI/NurPhoto/NurPhoto via AFP
PSE-05 – Ahmad Sa’adat
Alleged human rights violations
 Arbitrary arrest and detention
 Inhumane conditions of detention
 Lack of fair trial proceedings
A. Summary of the case
On 14 March 2006, Mr. Ahmad Sa’adat was abducted by the
Israeli Defence Forces from Jericho Jail and transferred to
Hadarim Prison in Israel, together with four other prisoners,
after being accused by the Israeli authorities of involvement in
the October 2001 murder of Mr. R. Zeevi, the Israeli Minister
of Tourism. The Israeli authorities concluded one month later
that Mr. Sa’adat had not been involved in the killing, but went
on to charge the other four suspects. Subsequently, 19 other
charges were brought against Mr. Sa’adat, all arising from his
leadership of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
(PFLP), which Israel considers a terrorist organization. None
of the charges allege direct involvement in crimes of violence.
On 25 December 2008, Mr. Sa’adat was sentenced to
30 years in prison. While detained, Mr. Sa’adat reportedly did
not receive the medical care he required, nor visits from his
family. In March and June 2009, he was placed in solitary
confinement, prompting him in June 2009 to go on a nine-day
hunger strike. He remained in solitary confinement for three
years, until May 2012.
In April 2017, Mr. Sa’adat took part in a mass hunger strike
by Palestinian detainees to protest against their detention
5 The delegation of Israel expressed its reservations regarding the decision.
Case PSE-05
Palestine/Israel: The Palestinian Legislative
Council and the Parliament of Israel are
affiliated to the IPU
Victim: Member of the Palestinian Legislative
Council (member of the majority)
Qualified Complainant(s): Section I.(1).(b) of
the Committee Procedure (Annex I)
Submission of complaint: July 2006
Recent IPU decision(s): October 2018
Recent IPU mission(s): - - -
Recent Committee hearing(s): Hearing with
the Palestinian complainants (October 2020)
Recent follow-up:
- Communication from the authorities: Letters
from the head of the Knesset delegation to
the Inter-Parliamentary Union (October
2020)
- Communication from the complainant:
October 2019
- Communication addressed to the
authorities: Letter to the Speaker of the
Knesset (September 2020)
- Communication addressed to the
complainant: October 2020
- 44 - CL/206/9/R.2
3 November 2020
conditions in Israeli prisons. He was reportedly moved at that time to solitary confinement in Ohlikdar
Prison. According to the information gathered during a hearing with the Palestinian complainants in
October 2020, the strike had also been triggered by the 2017 decision of the Israeli authorities to
reduce the number of monthly visits to one instead of two visits per month. The complainants stated
that the Israeli authorities had promised to increase the number of monthly visits; however, this has
yet to be done.
In their letter of 18 October 2020, the parliamentary authorities did not provide any information on
Mr. Sa’adat’s current conditions of detention, including his visiting rights. The authorities suggested
that the IPU should consider whether future correspondence relating to the case of Mr. Sa’adat was
appropriate, given his involvement in terrorism-related crimes.
During the hearing held with the Palestinian complainants in October 2020, the Committee on the
Human Rights of Parliamentarians gathered the following information on the situation of Palestinian
inmates in Israeli prisons:
- The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is allegedly the main focal point between
the Israeli authorities and the inmates’ families, and the only international organization allowed
to conduct visits to Israeli prisons. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, family visits are allegedly
restricted to one relative instead of five, and phone calls are allegedly prohibited. Prison guards
may, however, allow an inmate to have a phone call in the event of emergencies. Nevertheless,
there appears to be no consistency with respect to phone calls, which, according to the
complainants, are arbitrarily granted or refused by prison guards;
- According to the complainants, visits are restricted to spouses and first-degree relatives
(children, parents and siblings). They said that, before any visit could take place, the family had
to receive confirmation from the ICRC and be granted a permit to enter Israel. Visits lasted for
45 minutes and took place in the visiting room, where prisoners and their relatives
communicated by phone in front of a glass window separating them. The complainants added
that preparing for a visit was a time-consuming process; the round trip could take almost eight
hours, owing to the family’s place of residence, the location of the prison and the number of
checkpoints to cross. The complainants stated that those conditions also applied to other
inmates, and were more complicated for inmates from Gaza. According to the complainants, the
Israeli authorities purposely detained inmates in prisons located far away from their place of
residence, making it difficult for their families to visit;
- According to the complainants, detention conditions in Israeli prisons were dire. They said that
prison buildings were obsolete, with poor sanitary conditions, and that they were infested with
fleas and mosquitoes, while prison overcrowding was prevalent. The complainants alleged that
inmates were not allowed to have a fan in times of high temperatures. The same applied during
colder times, as prisons do not have central heating. Reportedly, prisoners were constantly
being moved from one prison to another, or from prison to an investigation centre or to court,
which meant that they spent several hours handcuffed inside a vehicle with aggressive and
strict guards. The complainants also alleged that there were clothes shortages in prison and
that inmates were allowed to have a new shirt only every three months. Inmates were required
to first signal their needs to the prison guard, and wait for the guard to grant the request. Once
the request was approved, inmates had to wait for a family visit before informing their relatives
of their needs. The shirt could then be provided during the following family visit. The
complainants also stated that detainees of all ages were held together, including children and
young adults. Inmates suffering from serious diseases, including cancer or diabetes, were
allegedly denied appropriate medical care. The complainants also denounced Israel's overuse
of administrative detention.
B. Decision
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
1. Takes note of the Israeli parliamentary authorities' letter of 18 October 2020; deeply regrets,
however, the lack of information about Mr. Sa’adat’s detention conditions;
CL/206/9/R.2 - 45 -
3 November 2020
2. Strongly reaffirms its long-standing position that Mr. Sa’adat’s abduction and transfer to Israel
were related not to the original murder charge but rather to his political activities as PFLP
General Secretary; deplores his continued detention for over 14 years as a result of a politically
motivated trial; and consequently calls again on the Israeli authorities to release him without
delay;
3. Is deeply concerned about the complainants' account of the detention conditions in Israeli
prisons, including the prevailing overcrowding and the alleged obsolete state of prison buildings;
is also worried about the prohibition of phone calls and the arbitrary practice of prison guards in
this regard; and urges the Israeli authorities, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent
visiting restrictions, to enable detainees to call their relatives;
4. Reiterates its long-standing wish to be granted permission to visit Mr. Sa’adat; and urges the
Israeli authorities to give serious consideration to this request;
5. Questions why the Israeli authorities decided to reduce the number of visits to one visit per
month, instead of the two monthly visits that were allowed until 2017; wishes to receive more
information on the reasons pertaining to this decision; also notes that, due to the COVID-19
pandemic, family visits would be limited to one person instead of five; deplores the fact that
Palestinian prisoners feel compelled to resort to hunger strikes to have their demands heard
and acted upon; and is eager to receive updated information on Mr. Sa’adat’s current conditions
of detention;
6. Stresses that the many national and international reports denouncing the conditions of detention
of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails should be of concern to the Knesset; reaffirms that the
Knesset can, and should, exercise its oversight function of the Israeli prison service with regard
to the treatment of Palestinian prisoners and thereby help ensure that all persons under the
jurisdiction and effective control of Israel are afforded the full enjoyment of the rights enshrined
in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; wishes to know if the Knesset and
individual members are allowed to carry out impromptu prison visits and, if so, to receive
information on the applicable legal framework;
7. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the competent authorities, the
complainant and any third party likely to be in a position to supply relevant information;
8. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report to it in due course.
*
* *


Office of the
Secretary General
Geneva, 3 December 2020
Parliamentary solidarity at work
Join the IPU in upholding the human rights of parliamentarians
Dear Madam President,
Dear Mr. President,
As the world organization of national parliaments, the Inter-Parliamentary Union
(IPU) strives to give its Members a prominent role in fulfilling the Organization’s
mandate, which includes the promotion and protection of the human rights of
parliamentarians.
Hence, I seek to enlist your assistance with regard to the individual human rights
decisions adopted by the IPU Governing Council at its recently concluded
extraordinary virtual session (1-4 November 2020). These decisions, which are
available here and are attached, concern the human rights situation of 160 members
of national parliaments in 13 countries. In addition to these cases, there are many
other parliamentarians whose situation continues to be monitored by the IPU.
I invite you to consult this interactive map to get the full picture of our work in this
area.
The IPU strongly believes that parliamentarians, as the voice of the people, should
be able to exercise their mandate without hindrance and without fear of reprisals. In a
similar vein, we believe that parliaments have a crucial role to play in protecting the
rights of their own members as well as of colleagues in other countries who are at
risk for merely exercising their mandate.
By acting in solidarity with parliamentarians under threat, parliaments can help to
protect their lives and obtain redress. This also provides solace to victims and sends
a strong signal to those bent on undermining the work of individual members of
parliament that their actions are unacceptable.
There are many ways in which parliaments can come out in support of individual
parliamentarians at risk. Indeed, over the years, we have been informed of countless
interesting examples of parliamentary follow-up. We believe that these practices can
and should serve as an inspiration to all parliaments, which is why they are listed
below for consideration by your Parliament:
• Systematically bring the decisions adopted by the IPU Governing Council on
cases involving violations of the human rights of parliamentarians to the
attention of the members of your Parliament.
• Organize parliamentary debates on the cases and adopt a position to
support the parliamentarians whose fundamental rights are in jeopardy, in
particular through adopting resolutions/declarations.
./..
Dansk Interparlamentarisk Gruppes bestyrelse 2020-21
IPU Alm.del - Bilag 9
Offentligt
• Set up a mechanism within parliament entrusted with taking follow-up action
based on IPU decisions on human rights cases.
• Take bilateral measures by approaching other relevant authorities of your
country or of the countries concerned with a view to promoting the
settlement of cases.
• Contact parliamentarians in the countries concerned to express your
concern over the cases taken up by the IPU and invite them to take
appropriate action to support their colleagues at risk.
• Meet the ambassadors of the countries concerned accredited in your country
to discuss the cases and express your concern.
• Organize parliamentary visits to discuss the cases or mandate
parliamentarians travelling on mission abroad to discuss the cases with their
counterparts.
• Discuss the cases during visits to your country by foreign parliamentary
delegations or any other relevant authority of the countries concerned.
• Request the intervention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of your country to
take diplomatic measures, either directly or through diplomatic
representatives in the countries concerned to contribute to a settlement in
the cases.
• Take joint action with the parliaments of neighbouring countries when
relevant.
• Convey these cases and IPU decisions to the authorities, institutions and
organizations concerned at the national, regional and sub-regional levels to
encourage them to intervene with a view to reaching a settlement in the
cases.
• Inform the media of the cases and publicize the activities of your Parliament
and the IPU regarding the protection and promotion of the human rights of
parliamentarians in your country and around the world.
I sincerely hope that your Parliament will be able to take one or more of these
suggested actions.
The IPU is keen to collect systematically information on concrete parliamentary
actions in support of parliamentarians at risk. I would therefore be grateful if you
could keep the IPU informed, through hrteam@ipu.org, of any such initiatives taken
by your Parliament. At the same time, the IPU stands ready to provide your
Parliament with information in real-time on ongoing and new individual human rights
cases so that your initiatives have the greatest relevance and impact.
I thank you in advance for your support and look forward to hearing from you soon on
this important matter.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Chungong
Secretary General