Skip to main content

Return to Occasional and Commissioned Papers


Occasional and Commissioned Papers

Celebrating a Century of Canada–IPU Collaboration
2

Selected Key Themes Addressed in IPU Assemblies

The Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians

It is our responsibility as parliamentarians who have the luxury of a parliament which allows us to speak where we are free of harassment, where we are free from unfair prosecution, where we are certainly free from murder; then, we have the responsibility to other parliamentarians in other countries of the world to protect their interests, because if a parliamentarian does not have human rights, then the citizens of that country definitely don’t have human rights. — Sharon Carstairs, former Senator, 2012

The IPU does important work in defending the human rights of parliamentarians. Canada has been a key player in this field. In 1974 (Tokyo) during a debate on “The Problem of Torture in the World,” Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather, MP, stressed that parliamentarians were being jailed in many countries because of their political beliefs; some were tortured while in detention. He also spoke about the denial of parliamentarians’ rights to exercise their parliamentary mandate, which he referred to as “a little-recognized form of torture,” adding: “This is a form of life sentence outside of jail.” The resolution adopted by the assembly called on the IPU to explore the possibility of setting up a procedure for examining and following up on communications concerning these human rights matters.

The Canadian Group undertook to develop such a procedure. In 1975, while in London, Robert Douglas George Stanbury, MP, visited the Secretary of Amnesty International to discuss practical ways of bringing this about. Later that year (Madrid), after extensive consultations, Senator Joan Neiman put forward a draft resolution with a detailed procedure for examining and following up on communications about alleged human rights violations against parliamentarians. A revised Canadian text was adopted, which led to the establishment of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians.

Photograph of Senator Sharon Carstairs at a press conference following public release of a report by the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians, in 2010 in Geneva

Senator Carstairs at the press conference following public release of the report of the Committee, 2010 (Geneva)
© Corbis / Photographer: Salvatore Di Nolfi

Membership

The committee consists of five permanent and five substitute members from the different geopolitical groups represented in the Union. They are elected by the Governing Council for a five-year term. Elected members must have a strong background in human rights. Substitute members must be present at all meetings and must have a detailed knowledge of the cases before the committee, to ensure a smooth transition if they are required to replace a permanent member. Each appointment is personal and cannot be transferred to another delegate from the same national group.

Three Canadians have served on the committee. Senator Neiman was elected substitute member (1979), permanent member (1988), President (1990 and 1992) and Vice-President (1991). Irwin Cotler, MP, was elected substitute member in 2002. Senator Sharon Carstairs was elected substitute member (2004), permanent member (2006–2011) and President (2007–2011).

Procedure

The committee examines a case after receiving a formal complaint from what it deems to be a qualified source. It then prepares a summary of the allegations and sends it to the authorities of the country concerned so they can present their position. A summary of their observations is relayed to the complainant.

The committee meets four times a year. It conducts hearings, reviews the information received, deliberates on the cases and adopts decisions in camera. This ensures both the independence and the discretion of its activities.

During her interview, Sharon Carstairs, former Senator, recalled that the committee was meeting in South Africa when a man walked into the room. He was not supposed to be there because the meeting was in camera. Committee members did not know who he was. The man said: “I am Javed Hashmi. The only correspondence I had from anyone in four years in jail was from this committee and I want to thank you for expediting my release.” Mrs. Carstairs stated that it was an extremely powerful moment for all the members of the committee.

 

When a case is complex, or there is limited information on file, or there is slow or no progress due to a lack of official cooperation, the committee carries out an on-site mission, with the consent of the country’s authorities. Direct contacts and personal interaction often help in achieving a satisfactory settlement. If the committee feels that further progress is impossible, it makes its reports public by submitting them to the Governing Council.

Committee members devote a large amount of time to this task. They must read and review complex and extensive material prior to each meeting, and the on-site visits require careful planning and preparation. Their work is also emotionally draining, as they learn about the violations and abuse suffered by their counterparts in many parts of the world.

Since its creation in 1978, the committee has investigated more than 1,600 cases in some 100 countries. In 2011 alone, it reviewed 83 cases (43 confidential, 40 public) affecting 389 parliamentarians from 41 countries. A total of 910 alleged violations against these 389 parliamentarians were recorded. The allegations included violations affecting their life, integrity and liberty, as well as the exercise of their parliamentary mandate.

Moral Authority and Parliamentary Solidarity

The committee has no legal authority with respect to the cases it investigates; it depends on the power of persuasion and moral authority. Parliamentary solidarity also plays an important role in securing successful settlement of cases. In 1990 (Nicosia), Senator Neiman reminded the assembly that IPU members can make an important contribution by putting pressure on the authorities of countries against which a complaint has been made. In her view, two of the most effective actions are: contacting the ambassadors of the countries in question, either by letter or in person; and asking our Minister of Foreign Affairs to relay concerns through Canadian ambassadors accredited to those countries. These two actions have been a standard practice for the Canadian Group.

Senator Neiman, who was instrumental in the establishment of this Committee over a decade ago, devotes considerable time and energy to this cause — attending meetings during the two statutory conferences, travelling to Geneva for two other meetings at the Union Headquarters and visiting foreign countries to investigate at first hand some of the cases under consideration. It is an extremely time-consuming, but vitally important task. — Senator Nathan Nurgitz, 1989


Previous   Next


© Library of Parliament 2012