Human Rights Commission of Maldives

Cases
Location of case in SG report
2015-030-001
Relevant SG report
Year of the report
2015
Country Geolocation

Latitude: 3.202778

Longitude: 73.22068

Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
Maldives
From Region
UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
  • UN Human Rights Council: Council Presidency
  • UN Special Procedures: Thematic
  • UN (Dep.) High Commissioner on Human Rights
Dates of prior UN action
3 October 2014; 19 May 2015; 19 June 2015; 26 June 2015
Type of record
Named organization
Was the victim a foreign national?
No
Was the victim a minor?
No
Type of rights defended
  • Unclear in SG Report
Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
No
Reported trigger of reprisal

After having submitted a report to OHCHR on 14 September 2014 in view of the review of Maldives at the twenty-second session of the universal periodic review, and publishing it on its website,

Engagement with UN body
  • UN Human Rights Council: UPR
Dates of engagement
14 September 2014
Type of attempted engagement
  • Submission of information to UN
Dates of mentioned reprisals
22 September 2014; 24 September 2014; 30 September 2014
Reprisal information

the Supreme Court of Maldives summoned the five members of the Commission to appear before the Court and, on 22September, initiated a suo moto case against them. On 24 September, at the first hearing, the members were charged with “spreading wrongful information and giving a wrongful impression of the constitutional mandate of the Supreme Court”. On 30 September, at the second hearing, the Commission members were allegedly questioned about the content of report prepared for the universal periodic review (A/HRC/28/85, case MDV 2/2014).

On 19 May, after having received reports that the Supreme Court had found the Commission’s submission for the universal periodic review was unlawful and declared that the Commission had to comply with a set of 11 guidelines, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a press release, stated that the judgement appeared to be “designed to severely undermine its ability to engage with the United Nations human rights system”.

Types of reprisals suffered
  • Administrative reprisal
  • Charge/Investigation/Prosecution: Conviction
  • Charge/Investigation/Prosecution: Trial
Alleged/likely perpetrators
State actors
Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
No
Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
No
Government response dates
6 May 2015
Government response content

On 6 May 2015, during its review, the Government stated that the Human Rights Commission staff members enjoyed immunity from prosecution or complaints for acts done in good faith within the purview of their functions. Given however that the case against the Commission members had yet to be decided, the Government deemed it inappropriate to comment further on the issue.

Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
No
Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
No
Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
No
How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
2
In which SG report was this case followed up on? 0
2021
Follow up information provided in SG report 0
  1. The case of the Maldives Human Rights Commission was included in the 2015 report of the Secretary-General193 following the Supreme Court’s judgement that found the Commission’s report to the 2014 UPR of the Maldives unlawful. The High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers publicly expressed concerns about the decision.194 In 2015, the Supreme Court alleged that the Commission had committed 20 unlawful acts by stating, in its 2014 UPR report, that the judiciary of the Maldives was controlled by the Supreme Court. It accused the Commission of committing acts against national security and interests, and of unlawfully disseminating information and reports in the name of the State to foreign bodies in violation of the Constitution and the Judicature Act. The Supreme Court requested the Commission to abide by 11 guidelines according to which it must, inter alia, refrain from undermining peace, security, and order.
  2. In its 19 February 2021 Views, the UN Human Rights Committee recognized the context and forum in which the criticism of the Supreme Court was made, i.e., in a written report submitted to the UPR (CCPR/C/130/D/3248/2018, para. 87). It stated that “the allegations and findings of unlawful acts and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court constituted disproportionate limitations” (para. 8.9) on the Commission’s freedom of expression, and “were not necessary to achieve a legitimate aim within the meaning of article 19 (3) of the Covenant” (para. 8.9). The Committee further noted the “harsh allegations, findings and guidelines restricted the ability of the Commission, including its members, to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, and may have created a chilling effect” (para. 7.4).195
Followup Trends 0
Improvement
Date of follow up 0
19 February 2021
Did the government respond? 0
Yes
Was this case followed up by a UN body? 0
  • UN Treaty Bodies: HRC
In which SG report was this case followed up on? 1
2022
Follow up information provided in SG report 1
  1. The case of the Maldives Human Rights Commission was included in the 2015 and 2021 reports of the Secretary-General following the Supreme Court’s suo moto proceedings and judgement that found the Commission’s report to the 2014 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Maldives unlawful for its critical assessment of the independence of the judiciary. In February 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Committee recognized the context where the criticism was made, i.e., in a written report submitted to the UPR, and stated that the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgement and guidelines were disproportionate and unnecessary limitations on the Commission’s freedom of expression that restricted its ability, including of its members, to seek, receive and impart information, and may have created a chilling effect (paras. 7.4 and 8.9). In August 2021, the Government acknowledged that the Supreme Court decision and guidelines had negatively impacted the independence of the Commission. It informed that amendments made in 2020 to the Human Rights Commission Act (Law 6/2006) had reinstated and reinforced the independence of the Commission.
  2. According to information received by OHCHR, the 2020 amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act included the stipulation that the Commission can decide to establish bilateral and multilateral relations with relevant actors as part of its work to protect and promote human rights. Reportedly, the amendments have removed the mandated prior approval before the Commission could engage with United Nations human rights mechanisms. They reportedly also specify that the Commission can submit reports and findings in its capacity as national human rights institution under international human rights conventions and treaties the Maldives is party to. As of 30 April 2022, the translation of the 2020 amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act was not yet available.
  3. On 31 July 2022, the Government replied to the note verbale sent in connection to the present report indicating that the Attorney’s General’s Office had no comments to the information contained in Annex II. It noted that the 2020 amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act are lengthy with multiple changes to the law and, therefore, there is not a full translation of the whole Amendment. Concerning the information included in Annex II, the Government provided the English translation of the relevant part or addition to Section 26-1 of the law.
Followup Trends 1
Improvement
Did the government respond? 1
Yes