Experts of the Human Rights Committee Commend Suriname for its Commitment to Judicial Independence, Ask about the National Human Rights Institute and the Rights of Tribal and Indigenous Peoples
The Human Rights Committee today concluded its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Suriname on how it implements the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with Committee Experts commending the State for its commitment to judicial independence, while asking questions about Suriname’s National Human Rights Institute and efforts made to guarantee the rights of tribal and indigenous peoples.
A Committee Expert commended the State party for its commitment to judicial independence and its ongoing efforts to improve the judiciary in Suriname. The Court of Justice currently had 29 candidates in training and the Attorney General had also launched a training programme involving 16 candidates for the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which were positive developments. The Committee also commended the State party for the adoption of the Code of Conduct for Judges and a complaints procedure.
Another Expert asked what kind of structure and governance the State party had in mind for the National Human Rights Institute? How did the proposal determine the appointment of mandate holders and the recruitment of personnel? How was the operational independence of the Institute ensured? How had civil society organizations and representatives of tribal groups been involved in developing this Institute? Would the Institute be able to carry out investigations and put forward recommendations? What were the main challenges facing the Institute when it came to its proper functioning?
One Expert asked if information could be provided about the events that occurred with the indigenous population in May 2023, where two people died. Had the circumstances around these events been investigated? How were tribal and indigenous peoples represented in decision-making posts in the country? Could examples of the successful incorporation of the views of tribal or indigenous peoples in political decisions be provided?
Regarding the National Human Rights Institute, the delegation said Suriname had striven to put in place a draft law which adhered to the Paris Principles. It was important to consider the financial independence of the Institute, the selection of the members, and their education and qualifications. The law was in a draft state and in the National Assembly; the Paris Principles for the Institute would be taken into account. Indigenous peoples and tribal communities were given the opportunity to comment on draft legislation and their comments were taken into consideration.
Regarding the case of the indigenous persons in May 2023, the delegation said the acts they had committed were crimes. Two police officers had been shot at, the bureau had been burnt down, and people were also taken hostage. There was a way to advocate discontent about what the Government was doing, but committing crimes was not the answer. The case was before the courts and the Government would let the courts make their decisions. On measures taken to ensure effective representation of tribal and indigenous peoples in decision-making decisions, the Suriname Government believed no provisions could be made as the current policy indicated that electoral candidates needed to be nominated by their political organizations.
Kenneth Amoksi, Minister of Justice and Police of Suriname and head of delegation, introducing the report, said in January 2022, the Minister of Justice and Police formed a commission to draft legislation for the National Human Rights Institute, which was currently under review. As part of the operationalisation of the Institute, the Ministry of Justice and Police held stakeholder meetings with a wide range of actors from civil society. These information sessions gathered input which was subsequently incorporated into the draft law.
To combat corruption, Mr. Amoksi said the Government had established an Independent Anti-Corruption Commission, tasked with early detection of non-compliance and abuse of powers within State institutions. Freedom of expression was a cornerstone of Suriname’s democracy.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Amoksi thanked the Committee for the open and frank dialogue which had been extremely educational.
In her concluding remarks, Tania María Abdo Rocholl, Committee Chairperson, thanked everyone who had participated in the dialogue. The Committee had discussed many different issues relating to the rights enshrined in the Covenant. The Committee was committed to ensuring that the highest level of civil and political rights was being achieved in Suriname.
The delegation of Suriname was made up of representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Police; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Internal Affairs; the Cabinet of the President; and the Permanent Mission of Suriname to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Human Rights Committee’s one hundred and forty-first session is being held from 4 to 28 March 2024. All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Meeting summary releases can be found here. The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon, Thursday, 11 July, to begin its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Syria (CCPR/C/SYR/4).
Report
The Committee has before it the fourth periodic report of Suriname (CCPR/C/SUR/4)
Presentation of Report
KENNETH AMOKSI, Minister of Justice and Police of Suriname and head of delegation, said Suriname’s constitutional and legal framework upheld the principles of the Covenant. Suriname had established mechanisms for constitutional review and interpretation, allowing for the adaptation of the legal system to evolving international human rights norms. In January 2022, the Minister of Justice and Police formed a commission to draft legislation for the National Human Rights Institute, which was currently under review. As part of the operationalisation of the Institute, the Ministry of Justice and Police held stakeholder meetings with a wide range of actors from civil society. These information sessions gathered input which was subsequently incorporated into the draft law. Once the law was approved and promulgated, further steps could be taken to operationalise the Institute.
To combat corruption, the Government had established an Independent Anti-Corruption Commission, tasked with early detection of non-compliance and abuse of powers within State institutions. Suriname had implemented strict anti-corruption laws, including mandatory asset declarations by public officials, and introduced open data initiatives to promote transparency. Future whistleblower protection programmes encouraged citizens to report corrupt activities without fear of retribution, fostering a culture of accountability and integrity.
Suriname’s policies and laws protected individuals from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual orientation, among others. To ensure effective implementation, Suriname had established monitoring bodies to oversee compliance with anti-discrimination laws and to address grievances. For example, the National Inclusive Labour Market Commission began raising awareness about promoting equality in the labour market and in the workplace, giving shape to the objective of the Employment Equal Treatment Act, which came into effect in November 2022. This law aimed to ensure equal treatment in both the labour market and the workplace.
Addressing gender-based violence was a priority for the Government. Comprehensive laws against domestic violence, with strict penalties for offenders, were rigorously enforced. Support services were provided for victims, such as shelters, the hotline “Mi Lijn”, and counselling through the Bureau Victim Care. A domestic violence course had been included in the curriculum of the security forces, police, the military, and the penitentiary services. Suriname had acceded to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in November 2021.
Suriname’s legal framework guaranteed protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, safeguarding personal security. Oversight bodies within the police force and from the Attorney General’s office monitored law enforcement activities, providing an additional layer of accountability. Suriname was working on reducing overcrowding in prisons through alternative sentencing and diversion programmes for non-violent offenders, emphasising restorative justice approaches.
Suriname was resolute in eliminating all forms of slavery, servitude, human smuggling and human trafficking. Strengthening legal frameworks and penalties for trafficking offenses ensured perpetrators were prosecuted and held accountable. Training programmes for border control and law enforcement officers were regularly conducted to be able to recognise and respond to trafficking cases effectively, ensuring swift and appropriate action to protect victims.
Freedom of expression was a cornerstone of Suriname’s democracy. According to the May 2024 publication of the international body called Reporters without Borders, Suriname had made remarkable progress within the international press freedom index, moving from position 48 to 28. Legal safeguards facilitated the right to peaceful assembly, ensuring citizens could express their views freely through peaceful protests and demonstrations. Regular training was conducted for law enforcement officials on managing assemblies and demonstrations, emphasising the importance of respecting human rights and minimising the use of force.
Strict laws and enforcement mechanisms were in place to protect children from exploitation and abuse, holding perpetrators accountable. The State had also established child protection units within law enforcement agencies to address cases of child abuse and exploitation promptly and effectively. Mr. Amoksi said Suriname’s commitment to the Covenant was unwavering. The delegation looked forward to a constructive dialogue.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert said the documents provided by the State party and the opening remarks contained useful information, which would provide a solid foundation for a constructive dialogue. The economic and political developments on the horizon in Suriname created opportunities but they also raised multiple challenges. The Committee sincerely commended the State party for the fact that its two highest courts, the Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court, gave direct effect to the Covenant and to the Human Rights Committee’s general comments. The Committee were aware of two rulings by these courts in 2023 where the Code of Criminal Procedure conflicted with article 14 of the Covenant. In light of these rulings, were the rights in the Covenant applied even when they were found to conflict with national laws?
What was the level of awareness of the Optional Protocol among judges, prosecutors and lawyers in Suriname? Was information on the procedure disseminated to those audiences? What was the current status of initiatives to improve the justice system? The Committee appreciated that the death penalty was abolished in the Penal Code in 2015 and the Military Code in 2021. What concrete steps was the State party taking to accede to the Second Optional Protocol? Was the definition of a state of emergency consistent with that of the Covenant? The Committee recognised that the pandemic posed significant difficulties for Suriname. What Covenant rights were suspended during the pandemic?
Another Expert said Suriname had taken a long time to establish a robust institute for the promotion and protection of human rights, including for indigenous and tribal communities. The Committee reiterated the benefits that this kind of institute had in other States parties. It was worth progressing with the creation of this institute. What kind of structure and governance did the State party have in mind for this National Human Rights Institute? How did the proposal determine the appointment of mandate holders and the recruitment of personnel? How was the operational independence of the Institute ensured? How had civil society organizations and representatives of tribal groups been involved in developing this Institute? How would the views of tribal and indigenous persons be incorporated into this Institute? Would the Institute be able to carry out investigations and put forward recommendations? What were the main challenges facing the Institute when it came to its proper functioning?
The Expert congratulated Suriname for incorporating these ideas at the first stage. The State could count on the support of the United Nations, through the United Nations Development Programme. Could information be provided about the events that occurred with the indigenous population in May 2023, where two people died. Had the circumstances around these events been investigated? Had it been discussed in parliament?
A Committee Expert took note of the legislative framework to combat corruption. The Anti-Corruption Act was still not concretely implemented. Reports had been received on the intimidation of journalists, media and whistleblowers who reported on corruption. What was the concrete state of the Anti-Corruption Act? How many investigations had been launched against persons who were suspected of being guilty of corruption? What were the measures being put forward to combat hate speech, including bills and legislative proposals underway?
The State indicated in its report to the Committee that no complaints had been registered for discrimination. The lack of any complaint was worrying; this meant there was a structural problem, or the general public did not know about available remedies. What measures had been taken to combat discrimination in different sectors of society, for example, the medical sector? What had been done to increase access for lesbian, gay, bisexual and intersex persons to services without discrimination?
The Committee was concerned about the treatment of tribal and indigenous persons. What measures had been taken to fuel this structural situation, fuelled by a lack of education and health services, and the pollution and contamination, particularly mercury contamination?
What measures had the State taken to combat discrimination against asylum seekers?
Another Expert said in December 2023, Suriname’s highest court upheld the 20-year prison sentence for former President Bouterse for the 1982 torture and extrajudicial execution of 15 political opponents. Despite an arrest warrant issued in January 2024, Mr. Bouterse had not been arrested. What steps were being taken to enhance accountability and transparency in efforts to track down accused persons, including Mr. Bouterse?
What safeguards were being implemented to ensure accountability for all individuals involved in gross human rights violations? What measures was Suriname taking to ensure effective investigations of grave human rights violations committed during the de facto military regime? What measures were currently available to protect witnesses against intimidation? What was the timeline to enact the Whistleblowers Act? How was it ensured that reparations were available to all victims of human rights violations?
Judges in Suriname had the authority to ban visits to detainees, including from lawyers, during serious investigations such as drug trafficking or terrorism. What measures was Suriname implementing to ensure detainees had access to unrestricted and prompt legal counsel? How would the lack of clear rules governing counsel be addressed? What steps was Suriname taking to develop a bail system in order to reduce pretrial detention periods? What measures was Suriname taking to prohibit incommunicado detention? What support systems were in place for detainees who had experienced incommunicado detention so as to ensure they received reparations and rehabilitation?
In 2021, Suriname had 10 psychiatrists, or one per 56,000 people. Limited access to mental healthcare appeared to have exacerbated the practice of attributing symptoms to supernatural causes, resulting in delays in seeking advice. What measures was Suriname taking to ensure people deprived of liberty had effective and timely access to mental health care? How was it ensured that those outside the capital received psychiatric assistance? What measures did the Prosecutor General take to ensure the rights of detained persons were protected?
Another Expert asked for information on specific steps taken to enact, strengthen and enforce laws which upheld the principles of equal pay for equal work? What further steps were being taken to address discriminatory stereotypes against women, including in incorporating programmes into the education system? The State party’s commitment to eliminate child marriage by 2030 and raise the minimum age of marriage was well known and commendable. Child marriage was a serious concern in the State party. Could the State party provide a specific timeline on the new bill for the Civil Code, and whether this would raise the age of marriage? What steps did the State party intend to take to enforce the law on combatting domestic violence? Could data for all forms of violence against women be provided? What measures did the State party plan to take to work together with civil society to design and implement community-based support?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Constitutional Court currently had full members. The State strove to provide them with everything they needed. There were no formal plans to change the functioning of the Constitutional Court.
Regarding the case of Mr. Bouterse, he was convicted and the 20-year conviction was upheld. Mr. Bouterse had managed to escape and the Prosecutor General issued a call for his arrest. Interpol had been assisting, but so far there had not been a positive result. Police and national services were working hard on this case. Suriname’s courts were independent and the Prosecutor and Attorney General functioned without instruction from the Government.
The anti-corruption law had been in place since 2017, but it had not been implemented. When the Government took office in 2020, it had installed the Anti-Corruption Commission, but it was in its infancy. Suriname worked closely with the Ministry of Justice of France. Last week, the anti-corruption agency from France visited Suriname to assist with a seminar. Before the anti-corruption legislation was in place, there had already been convictions of high authorities and former ministers for the crime of corruption, based on the Penal Code.
Regarding the case of the indigenous persons in May 2023, the acts they had committed were crimes. Two police officers had been shot at, the bureau had been burnt down, and people were also taken hostage. There was a way to advocate discontent about what the Government was doing, but committing crimes was not the answer. The case was before the courts and the Government would let the courts make their decisions. Everything had gone through the correct criminal procedures.
Regarding the National Human Rights Institute, Suriname had striven to put in place a draft law which adhered to the Paris Principles. It was important to consider the financial independence of the Institute, the selection of the members, and their education and qualifications. There were certain expenses that the Government was allowed to finance for the National Human Rights Institute, including computers and logistics. Providing for these requirements did not mean the Institute was not independent. The law was in a draft state and in the National Assembly, the Paris Principles for the Institute would be taken into account. Indigenous peoples and tribal communities were given the opportunity to comment on draft legislation and their comments were taken into consideration.
When the Cabinet convened today, there had been a request from the President to submit the draft proposals for laws, which included the Whistleblower Act. Recently, Suriname had moved up 20 places regarding freedom of expression, evaluated by an independent organization, which was positive news. The State was working on a draft law which authorised journalists to petition the Government. This law, the public information law, would soon be debated in the National Assembly.
The law on equal treatment regarding labour matters was adopted in 2022. Employees had the right to file a complaint with the labour inspectorate regarding discrimination. The law contained an article on equal pay for equal work. Sessions were organised to address gender stereotypes within the family. Since 2021, gender was included within higher education. The minimum age to enter marriage was currently 15 years for girls and 17 years for boys. This had been raised to 18 for both, under the new draft Civil Code which was being discussed. Police could be reached nation-wide for reports of domestic violence. The Government had not established additional shelters for victims of gender-based violence. There were two non-governmental organization shelters which had been opened.
There had been a revision of the Penal Code, and now everyone arrested in Suriname was permitted to have access to the magistrates within 48 hours, to contest the grounds on which the arrest was made. Legal aid was ensured throughout the 10 districts of Suriname. The payment for lawyers had been raised.
Questions by Committee Experts
An Expert had no doubt that Suriname was working in good faith on the issues raised. The Expert was happy to hear there were no plans to modify the Constitutional Court because this Court had been a positive addition to the legal framework within Suriname. Could more information be provided on the Second Optional Protocol, moving towards the abolition of the death penalty? The Covenant contained several rights and freedoms which could not be suspended, even during public emergencies, including the prohibition of torture, certain fair trial guarantees, and the right to life. Was it ensured that those rights and freedoms, which the Covenant prohibited from suspension, were also unable to be suspended in Suriname?
Another Committee Expert looked forward to hearing more about other bills, including the bill on collective lands for indigenous and tribal communities. How many members would the National Human Rights Institute have? What would be the nature of the resolutions it adopted? How binding would the resolutions be? Were the proposals of indigenous persons taken on board to create the National Human Rights Institute? Were there mechanisms to receive complaints of torture or excessive use of force? Did victims receive appropriate compensation and reparation? Were the licenses to use the forestry lands, which gave rise to the demonstrations, revoked?
A Committee Expert said the Committee was most interested in the de facto situation in Suriname, which was the reason for the numerous questions. What plans were in place to ensure the effective implementation of the Institutions and Shelters Act of 2014, which regulated shelters to vulnerable populations?
Another Expert asked if the Equal Pay Act also applied to the public sector? Did the Government have plans to have additional services for victims of domestic violence?
A Committee Expert appreciated the delegation’s response on the issue of tackling corruption. What measures had been undertaken by the State to implement the view of the Inter-American Court on the identity of transgender people?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Suriname was a democratic country which upheld the rule of law. All actions were based on human rights treaties; the State was not planning to enact laws which violated treaty conditions. When calling for a state of emergency, there was a framework to do so. Even during the pandemic, the legislation put in place was with respect to the treaties to which Suriname was a party.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert said the Committee was aware that some detainees and prisoners in Suriname had faced cruel and inhumane treatment. In 2018, a local university surveyed 500 inmates in prison and police stations, with nearly half of the respondents reporting they experienced physical violence after arrest to compel testimony; 86 per cent of inmates surveyed felt unsafe in prison. This was very concerning. What was Suriname doing to prevent the inhumane treatment of persons held in detention?
What reforms were planned to ensure prisoners received prompt medical attention for urgent cases? What measures was Suriname taking to ensure separate prison facilities for women and minors? What steps was the Government taking to mandate independent international human rights observers to conduct unannounced and regular visits to detention facilities? What measures was Suriname taking to establish hygienic sanitary conditions and prevent the spread of communicable diseases in detention facilities? What training was provided to prison staff to handle public health emergencies?
Another Committee Expert said the information provided by the State party on measures taken toward preventing and combatting trafficking was well noted and commendable. Could information be provided on measures taken to develop and implement a robust and comprehensive anti-trafficking strategy? How was enhanced training provided to law enforcement, immigration and judicial officials to better identify and protect victims of trafficking?
Reports before the Committee indicated there were certain barriers to accessing birth registration in the State party, including the problem of affordability as well as a lack of clear policies and laws to ensure procedures. How was the State party ensuring that there were no barriers to accessing birth registration? Did Suriname intend to establish a statelessness determination procedure and implement policies that ensured access to birth registration? Could Suriname provide information on the content of the law prohibiting corporal punishment? What measures were being taken to ensure that physical and mental abuse in children were investigated and perpetrators were held to account?
An Expert asked how the Government ensured that all asylum seekers and migrants had effective access to fair and timely proceedings, including to repeal decisions?
How were tribal and indigenous peoples represented in decision-making posts in the country? Could examples of the successful incorporation of the views of tribal or indigenous peoples in political decisions be provided? What was the likely date of the elections in 2025?
The Committee had taken note of the efforts being made by the State party to establish the rights of tribal peoples. In Suriname, was it ensured that there were free, prior and informed consent of all indigenous peoples in all decisions which affected them? What was the content of the draft bill on the collective rights of indigenous peoples? What measures was the State taking to expedite the procedure of adopting a legal framework? How was the Government ensuring that land permits for mining or logging were only issued with the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples affected? How were the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples incorporated into national plans and policies?
Another Committee Expert commended the State party for its commitment to judicial independence and its ongoing efforts to improve the judiciary in Suriname. The Court of Justice currently had 29 candidates in training and the Attorney General had also launched a training programme involving 16 candidates for the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which were positive developments. When were the judiciary and the Prosecutor’s Office expected to reach the full complement of judges and other personnel? What steps were being taken to ensure the financial structure respected judicial independence? The Committee commended the State party for the adoption of the Code of Conduct for Judges and a complaints procedure. Could information on their enforcement be provided?
What would be done to enable indigenous and tribal peoples to obtain access to justice? Could the delegation comment on reports that lawyers who provided legal aid were inadequately paid? Could more information be provided about efforts to establish legal aid centres in more remote areas of the country?
A Committee Expert said there had been positive information on the Government’s openness when it came to the press. Suriname’s 20-place jump in the ranking of the reporters without borders index should be commended. Were there any investigations and proceedings to shed light on allegations of intimidation and harassment of journalists and human rights defenders? What was the progress on and content of the private members’ bill? Was there progress on the Freedom of Information Act? With respect to the demonstrations of February 2023, individuals had been arrested and detained, but the legal grounds for arrest were unclear. Could more information on this be provided?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said every birth which took place on Suriname territory needed to be reported to the civil registry office, regardless of the place of residence or the status of residence of the parents. The report led to their registration and a birth certificate. Suriname had taken notice of recommendations regarding corporal punishment. Corporal punishment was still forbidden in all stages of education and schools. This practice was also forbidden by law. Every case of child abuse was taken seriously by the police. All children between the ages of zero to 16 were provided with basic healthcare by the State, which was free of charge. In cases where specialised care was needed, this was provided by the State.
Regarding measures taken to ensure the effective representation of tribal and indigenous peoples in decision-making decisions, the Suriname Government believed no provisions could be made, as the current policy indicated that electoral candidates needed to be nominated by their political organizations. The elections would be held on 25 May 2025.
When enacting legislation, Suriname determined that the new legislation was not in conflict with international conventions and the Constitution. The State had already ratified the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant without reservation, and this would be done for the Second Optional Protocol. There were criminal offences for which prosecution could not be eliminated, including crimes against humanity, genocide, torture and war crimes. The Government could have done more to inform the public about the Committee and how they could contact the Committee regarding challenges they faced.
Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Government had to draft new legislation in every district for every political party. The law governing the court of justice proceedings from 1996 would be reviewed and updated. Updates would concern the independence of the courts and that they would have their own budget. If a person had complaints of ill treatment by security forces, they could complain to the police, or to the department of police misconduct. The Prosecutor’s Office and the Court of Justice investigated and decided on cases of torture and ill treatment; they could decide on granting reparations to alleged victims.
The land permits mentioned had been granted by the previous Government, and there had previously been no issues regarding them. The Constitution guaranteed equality of men and women. The principle of non-discrimination was provided in legislation, including the law on equal treatment regarding labour matters. The Government currently had no shelters for victims of domestic violence but was looking for suitable areas in several regions to establish the shelters. There were currently two run by non-governmental organizations. The biggest challenges for establishing the shelters were hiring qualified staff and also the financial challenges. The Government was currently in the process of installing supervisory boards which oversaw the implementation of the Shelters Act. The State was struggling with the huge turnover of the civil service but would continue its efforts to ensure the unit was staffed.
From 2021 to 2022, the Care Act had been reviewed by an external consultant, with collaboration from multiple stakeholders, including civil society. The Government was unconditionally continuing its efforts to ensure the Act was being implemented.
The National Human Rights Institute would consist of five to nine members, taking into account diversity and inclusivity. Members would be appointed by the President for a period of six years. The Committee would consist of five persons nominated by the Court of Justice. Members would have specific knowledge and affinity of human rights, including collective rights, rights of migrants and refugees, and child rights, among others. The salaries would be determined by State decree, with payments made six months in advance. Indigenous and tribal peoples would be asked for their opinions in sessions, and their inputs would be taken into account in the Institute’s decision-making. There would be a special chamber for the indigenous and tribal peoples, where all measures concerning their rights would be dealt with.
Prisoners were entitled to food, medical care, clothing, wages and visits, among other rights. The Government must ensure that prisons received the finances to implement these measures. The Court of Justice had started a project to decentralise the administration of justice to allow people in all districts to have access to free legal aid. Local people had been recruited to act as interpreters. Each correctional institution had a specialist doctor, supported by trained professionals, to provide medical support. In severe cases, patients were referred to the hospital for treatment. The Ministry of Justice and Police had launched a project to install cameras in all prisons and police bureaus to determine what was happening in these institutions. An agreement was pending with the State insurance company for free medical care for prisoners, as well as those in pretrial facilities. Minors were accommodated in separate building in prisons. Currently, youth were in a building on the premises of the correctional facilities. They were kept separate from adults.
The trafficking in persons unit currently included 14 personnel and training was provided. The High Court of Justice had its own budget to guarantee judicial independence. Recently, a draft law passed through the State Council of Ministers on tax. The civil law was expected to be completed by August, and it would be in conformity with the laws of countries like the Netherlands. Suriname was an open society, where journalists had free access to institutions. The draft law on public information was being debated. There had been commission meetings organised by the National Assembly. Before a public demonstration, it was important for organisers to discuss the event with the police.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert said steps the Government was taking to overcome challenges around domestic violence were well noted. Could more data on the prosecution of cases of trafficking be provided? Were there adequate shelters for trafficking victims? Regarding statelessness, if a person was an illegal migrant, would the child not be registered? Was there an asylum determination procedure in the country? Would the State party take steps to accede to the conventions on statelessness? Would there be specific legislation on corporal punishment?
Another Expert said questions on impunity had not been completely answered. Could more details on incommunicado detention be provided? What measures was the State party taking to strengthen internal reporting mechanisms in places of deprivation of liberty? What was being done to ensure access to justice for detainees who had suffered cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment? What were the current oversight mechanisms in place? Had Suriname provided detainees and prison staff with access to COVID-19 vaccines? What was being done to provide health equipment in detention facilities? How had the State been addressing the issue of overcrowding in prisons? Were training and support services being provided to prison staff to handle public health crisis in the future?
There were many opportunities created with the expansion of oil and gas in Suriname, as well as many associated risks. Was there awareness in the country and Government about the need to urgently come up with policies and legislation around the exploitation of hydrocarbon? What environmental protection legislation was in force? What was the timeframe for the necessary regulations? How would extractive processes be monitored? How was it being ensured that the increased income for the State would be allocated to address growing inequalities?
Another Expert said the Committee believed that protesters should provide information on how the demonstration would be organised, but did not have to ask for permission from the authorities.
A Committee Expert thanked the delegation for their engagement and constructive spirit. The State party should make good news, such as that of the judiciary, more widely known across Suriname. Transparency and outreach were important, and worth being shared.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said a child born to asylum seeking parents would be registered as being born on Surinamese territory but would not be considered part of the population. Asylum seekers could submit a request for a resident permit. The State had no information about not having water or COVID-19 supplies for prisons. There had been no issues in closing prison centres. Suriname had vaccinated prisoners during the pandemic. There was no incommunicado detention in Suriname. Each morning, police bureaus were contacted to ascertain the number of detainees, to provide food for everyone there. Police officers made decisions in collaboration with the Prosecutor’s Office.
It was important to communicate policy decisions with the general public. People living in remote villages sometimes did not receive information about developments taking place in the capital. The Government should do more to inform them of issues and developments taking place in their own language, which had an impact on human rights. The data on the recent developments with trafficking in persons would be produced.
Closing Remarks
KENNETH AMOKSI, Minister of Justice and Police of Suriname and head of delegation, thanked the committee for the open and frank dialogue which had been extremely educational.
In her concluding remarks, TANIA MARÍA ABDO ROCHOLL, Committee Chairperson, thanked everyone who had participated in the dialogue. The Committee had discussed many different issues relating to the rights enshrined in the Covenant. The Committee was committed to ensuring that the highest level of civil and political rights was being achieved in Suriname.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CCPR24.025E