TOGO

CASE N° TG/01 - MARC ATIDEPE
CASE N° TG/02 - TAVIO AMORIN
CASE N° TG/O3 - GASTON AZIADUVO EDEH

Resolution adopted without a vote by the Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 160th session
(Seoul, 15 April 1997)

The Inter-Parliamentary Council,

Referring to the outline of the case, as contained in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/160/14(a)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 159th session (September 1996) concerning the case of Mr. Marc Atidépé, Mr. Tavio Amorin, members of the High Council of the Republic (HCR) of Togo, and Mr. Gaston Aziaduvo Edeh, a member of the Togolese Parliament,

Considering the communication from the President of the National Assembly of Togo dated 31 October 1996 in which he clarified the statement he had made to the Committee at the hearing held on the occasion of the 96th Inter-Parliamentary Conference,

Considering the information supplied by the Togolese delegation on the occasion of the 97th Inter-Parliamentary Conference (April 1997),

Taking also into consideration a communication from one of the sources dated 1 April 1997,

Recalling that Mr. Atidépé and Mr. Amorin, both members of the High Council of the Republic of Togo, the former transitional legislative body, were assassinated in May and July 1992, respectively; recalling that Mr. Edeh, MP-elect, was murdered in February 1994; that the killings of the three MPs were allegedly carried out by military personnel,

Recalling the constant affirmation of the authorities that investigations into these murders are under way, although they have given no indication of any results,

Recalling that, on 15 December 1994, the Togolese Parliament voted an amnesty covering all politically motivated offences and crimes committed before that date; that the authorities yet again affirmed that the investigations in question were not affected by that law,

Recalling further that, by letter dated 6 June 1996, the Minister of Justice informed the Committee that, in conformity with the amnesty law, the files in question had been closed,

Recalling in this connection that, on 6 March 1996, the Government of Togo submitted a written report to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in which it stated that it had adopted a series of measures aimed at taking into consideration the question of the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation,

Recalling the statement by the President of the National Assembly on the occasion of the hearing held at the 96th IPU Conference in Beijing, in respect of the wish expressed by the Committee that relevant legislation be adopted, to the effect that this was quite possible, that all parliamentary groups, including his own, would fully support any such draft legislation submitted to Parliament by a Parliamentary Group, and that his group would not, however, take the initiative of presenting a relevant draft,

Considering that, according to one of the sources, under the Togolese Constitution, deputies may not submit a bill whose adoption would result in creating or increasing a financial burden on the State unless it is offset by proposals implying matching income-generation and that, for this reason, no parliamentary group had submitted such a bill; that it was consequently for the President of the National Assembly to call on the Government to introduce the appropriate draft legislation,

1. Thanks the Togolese delegation for the information it supplied;
2. Regrets that the authorities have not as yet honoured their own undertaking given in March 1996 to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to adopt measures aimed at taking into consideration the question of the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation;
3. Recalls in this respect that the members of the Togolese delegation to the 96th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, consisting of members of all parliamentary groups, said they would ensure that the necessary initiatives were taken and followed through;
4. Stresses once again the general human rights principle that victims of violations of their human rights are entitled to know the truth, to enjoy justice and to receive reparation, failing which there can be no just and lasting reconciliation;
5. Reaffirms its conviction that, in common with the amnestying of offences, the question of reparation requires a legal and institutional framework to be adopted by Parliament;
6. Notes that, under the Togolese Constitution, proposals tabled by MPs which have financial implications for the State are not admissible unless offset by proposals implying matching income-generation; once more invites the Government to present the text establishing that framework, and Parliament, particularly in view of its power to oversee the Executive, to ensure that such action is indeed taken;
7. Wishes to ascertain what measures " aimed at taking into consideration the question of the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation " have in fact so far been adopted;
8. Also wishes to ascertain whether any measures have been taken to compensate the families of the three parliamentarians in question, given that their murders were politically motivated;
9. Requests the Secretary General to convey these considerations to the President of the National Assembly and any other competent authorities, in particular the Minister of Human Rights;
10. Requests the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to continue examining the case and report to it at its next session (September 1997).