[ad_1]
How seriously should we take the legislative power exercised by the Government and the National Assembly (DNA)? Is the current staff of this very important constitutional body adequate to carry out this important task? These are legitimate questions after screening the public DNA hearing on July 23, 2024.
At the public DNA meeting on the amendment to the Civil Code, Minister Abiamofo felt the need to publicly and repeatedly stress on behalf of the government that this government does not consider it desirable that the rights of LGBTQI persons be recognised and guaranteed under the Civil Code.
Of course, there are different personal opinions and views on LGBTQI issues, but one established fact is that Suriname is a country ruled by law and there should not be any different opinions on this.
This fact must not be compromised and/or ignored under any circumstances. As a constitutional state, Suriname has the obligation to guarantee the rights of all persons on Surinamese territory, including the rights of LGBTQI persons. The current government, through Mr. Abiamofo, believes it can evade this obligation.
In recent years, one has noticed an increasing disregard for individual rights. But in this article, due to current events, I will limit myself to the rights of LGBTQI people.
This government, in its unconstitutional and rule-of-law attitude, has deliberately chosen to defy the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (I/A Court). Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, Inter-Am. Ct. HR (Series A) No. 24 – the judicial bodies of the OAS – do not respect and enforce it. It is also a deliberate choice not to guarantee within Surinamese jurisdiction the rights and freedoms recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights (AVHR), the cornerstone treaty of the OAS.
The Government has thus irrefutably demonstrated that it has nothing to do with the human rights instruments and mechanisms of the OAS. It is therefore shocking and contradictory that the same Government feels compelled to nominate a candidate for the highest post at the OAS.
The Constitutional Court of Suriname (CHof) has ruled on the rights of LGBTQI people in its decision CHof CH-03 of 31 January 2023. The CHof ruled that these rights are recognized by treaties to which Suriname is a party, in particular the international treaties the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the GDPR. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Article 27 of the Vienna Convention (UCC) imposes an obligation on Suriname to comply with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Women, among others. In addition, Article 27 of the CAC prohibits Suriname from invoking national legal provisions as a reason why LGBTQI+ people cannot exercise the rights recognized by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Women that belong to all people. In addition, the I/A Court and the United Nations Human Rights Committee have issued binding decisions and recommendations to Suriname aimed at protecting the rights of LBGTQI+ people.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the Surinamese Civil Code, which dates back to 1869, has never been adapted to the social realities of LGBTQI+ people and is therefore in urgent need of supplementation and improvement. However, LGBTQI rights can be directly invoked under the ICCPR and the AVHR through Articles 105 and 106 of the Constitution. The Court went on to point out that the same rights recognized by the ICCPR and the ICRW are also enshrined in Chapter V of the Constitution.
The court ruled that the Surinamese legislature had consistently failed to enshrine LGBTQI+ people’s marriage rights into national legislation. This oversight was also evident in the failure to amend existing legislation and the draft of a new civil code.
The reference to the judge by the Government representative, Mr. Abiamofo, is outdated, wrong and misleading, partly because of the ruling of the I/A Court and the decision of CHof.
Finally, if the government respects itself and is serious about its candidacy for the OAS, it must abandon this repugnant, unconstitutional, and unlawful position and amend the Civil Code to make it an inclusive law applicable to LGBTQI persons in accordance with existing case law and treaty obligations. Guarantees for the rights of LGBTQI persons do not prejudice any rights or claims of others.
Mr. M.A. Castelen, LL.M. &
Lawyer specializing in constitutional and administrative law, human rights and international law.
[ad_2]
Source link
