Kominike de Press 10 Avril 2010

Transcription

1 Liberty, Equality, Humanity, Ecology and Feminism Kominike de Press 10 Avril 2010 Rezistans ek Alternativ inform lapres ki laksyon ki nu pe amene kont kominalism dan sistem politik finn travers enn nuvo letap desiziv yer Vandredi 9 Avril Premyerman, UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) finn dimand bann eklersisman vital avan li emet Deklarasyon Interimer lor vyolasyon drwa imen, selon lartik 25 ek 26 UN Civil & Political Rights dan kontext Nomination Day ek Eleksyon Zeneral 5 Mai. Dezyeman, kanpayn Platform pu enn Nuvo Konstitisyon: Sitwayennte-Egalite-Ekolozi, ki finn ofisyelman anrezistre Mardi dernye, pe pass a letap siperyer: plizyer sitwayen pe zwenn dan sa demars istorik pu challenge Section 5 Nomination Paper, le 17 Avril. Yer finn ena enn esanz kominikasyon importan ant UNHRC ek Rex Stephen, avoka Rezistans ek Alternativ dan k ontext demand pu ki UN emet enn Ruling Interimer Special Rapporteur UN Human Rights Committee, finn ekrir Rex Stephen pu dir The Committee's Special Rapporteur on New Communications and Interim Measures requests further clarifications on the nature of your interim measures request. Kindly clarify what kind of measures you request and further substantiate how irreparable damage would be caused to your clients in the absence of a request under Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure.. Rex Stephen, lor nom Rezistans ek Alternativ finn imedyatman furni bannn informasyon ki UNHRC pe dimande. (Get Annex). An paralel, lansman Platform pu enn nuvo Konstitisyon: Sitwayennte-Egalite-Ekolozi pe gayn enn rispons byen favorab. Plizyer sitwayen ek muvman pe ader a sa demars pu poz kandida san ranpli seksyon 5 kominal Nomination Paper. Dime, Dimans 11 Avril, nu pe invit tu sitwayen ki anvi partisip dan laksyon anti-seksyon 5 dan enn rasanbleman dan syez FSCU Benevolent Fund dan Coromandel, a a.m. Li enn lasanble uver a tu dimunn ki ule poz kandida san ranpli sekyson 5. Nu pu osi donn tu bann detay lor kimanyer pu ranpli Nomination Paper, ranpli parenaz bann kandida. Tu sitwayen ki anvi partisip dan laksyon kont kominalism kapav Rezistans ek Alternativ lor rezistans@freeitmauritius.org. Apartir Lindi kapav osi konsilte nu nuvo website lor

2 Li kler zordi, ki se pa 3 lakrwa le 5 Mai, ki pu fer kit diferans dan lasosyete, me se byen laksyon politik bann sitwayen le 17 Avril. Sa 2 blok politik-la pa pu remet an kestyon kominalism ki pe ankangrenn demokrasi. Dayer zot prizonye sistem politik kominal. Zot pena diferans ant zot mem. Zot fek pe negosye lalyans ant zot mem. Dime apre eleksyon posibilite enn Koalisyon Ptr- MMM gran uver. Alor nu dimann tu dimunn ki finn plen ar kominalism pu sezi lokazyon spesyal ki listwar pu ofer nu Repiblik. Inn ler pu pass a laksyon le 17 Avril. Ler koze inn fini, fer bann obzervasyon lor kominalism dan eleksyon pa sifi, fer zoli analiz lor sitwayennte pa ase..aster listwar pe apel a LAKSYON le 17 Avril! Nu fer enn lapel partikilye a bann zenn, akademik, artis pu PRAN ZOT KURAZ pu dibute ek poz kandida kuma sitwayen indepandan le 17 Avril Se bann sitwayen ki bizin re-apropriye politik pu sanz sistem politik. Listwar pu retenir ki sann-la ki finn ena kuraz pu dibute dan sa moman desiziv-la. Ashok Subron & Ian Jacob pu Rezistans ek Alternativ Contact: rezistans@freeitmauritius.org Mobile: (Ashok Subron), Ian Jacob ( ) Our Lawyers contact: Rex Stephen , Nilen Venkadasmi:

3 THE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PALAIS DES NATIONS GENEVA, SWITZERLAND 9 th April 2010 MOST URGENT COMPLAINT TO THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE UNDER THE FIRST OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS D. NARRAIN et al v. THE REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS Communication number 1744/2007 TO THE COMMITTEE S SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON NEW COMMUNICATIONS AND INTERIM MEASURES CLARIFICATIONS ON THE NATURE OF INTERIM MEASURE SOUGHT AND THE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE THAT WILL BE CAUSED 1. The General Election is now scheduled to be held on the 5 th of May 2010 and the registration of candidates (the Nomination Day) fixed to the 17 th of April On the 17 th of April 2010 the Complainants will submit their respective Nomination Paper (being Form 4 of the National Assembly Elections Regulations of 1968) to the electoral authority (viz. the Returning Officer) of the Constituency in which each intends to stand as candidate.

4 3. The Complainants will not fill in Item 5 of Part II of the Nomination Paper that enjoins them to classify themselves into one of four categories provided for in the First Schedule to the Constitution. 4. By virtue of Regulation 12(5) of the National Assembly Elections Regulations 1968 which declares void and of no effect the nomination and candidature of a prospective candidate by his failure to fill in Item 5 of Part II of the Nomination Paper, the Complainants nomination and candidature will be rejected. 5. The Complainants will then move the Supreme Court under paragraph 4(4) of the First Schedule to the Constitution for an order directing the electoral authorities to insert the Complainants names on the list of candidates for the 5 th May 2010 General Election. 6. The above is an exact repetition of the course followed by the Complainants at the General Election of the 3 rd July The Supreme Court ( Balancy J.) had held then, whilst ordering that the Complainants name be inserted on the list of candidates, that paragraph (5) of Regulation 12 of the National Assembly Elections Regulations 1968 to be repugnant to section 1 of the Constitution. (D. Narain and ors. V. The Electoral Commissioner and ors 2005 MR 99). 8. The Supreme Court ( Pillay CJ, Matadeen and Lam Shang Leen JJ) has subsequently held that prospective candidates at a general election are under a legal obligation to declare on their nomination papers the communities to which they belong, failing which, their nomination papers will be held invalid by their respective Returning Officers. (Electoral Supervisory Commission v. The Honourable Attorney General 2005 MR 42) 9. It is the Complainants contention that their proposed recourse to the Supreme Court under paragraph 4(4) of the First Schedule to the Constitution appears to be gravely compromised in view of the decision in the case of Electoral Supervisory Commission v. The Honourable Attorney General (supra). 10. The Complainants contend that should matters stand as they are, they will be deprived of the fundamental right to stand as a candidate at a general election, solely by virtue of their inability or unwillingness to classify themselves on a basically ethnic criterion. 11. The Complainants recall that at the ninety-seventh session of the Human Rights Committee held from 12 to 30 th October 2009, (CCPR/C/97D/1744/2007), the Committee found that they had sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, their quality of victims and their claims under articles 25 and 26 of the Covenant. The Committee had further requested the State party to submit to the Committee, within six months, written explanations or statements

5 clarifying the matter, and indicating the measures, if any, that may have been taken by the State Party. 12. The Complainants, whilst referring to Stewart v. Canada (UN GAOR, 52 nd sess, Supp No. 40 (A/52/40), Report of the Human Rights Committee, vol 2, 47,5), contend that they will suffer irreparable damage should they not be granted an interim measure that can potentially avoid their candidature being rejected at the forthcoming General Election. 13. The Complainants further contend there would be (in the absence of any interim measure) irreversible consequences quoad them in as much as they would be unable to secure their rights in the context of the Committee s decision that they have substantiated sufficiently for purposes of admissibility their quality of victims and their claims under articles 25 and 26 of the Covenant. 14. In the absence of any other form of sophisticated interim measures, the Complainants rights under articles 25 and 26 of the Covenant can potentially be safeguarded by an interim declaration that their rights under articles 25 and 26 of the ICCPR are likely, and will effectively be, violated, should the Constitution and the electoral laws of Mauritius be given effect in depriving them of their right to stand as candidates at a General Election solely on account of their inability or unwillingness to classify themselves on a basically ethnic criterion. 15. The Complainants therefore reiterate their prayer for an interim declaration from the Human Rights Committee on the basis, and for the reasons, set out in the preceding paragraph, given its power to do so without implying a determination on the merits of the communication. Rex Stephen Barrister at Law Head of Chambers N. Vencadasmy Barrister at Law Astor Law Professionals ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS 9 th April 2010.