IPU Logo-top>>> VERSION FRANÇAISE  
 IPU Logo-middleInter-Parliamentary Union  
IPU Logo-bottomChemin du Pommier 5, C.P. 330, CH-1218 Le Grand-Saconnex/Geneva, Switzerland  

SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
CASE N° SYR/03 - RIAD SEEF
Resolution adopted unanimously by the Governing Council
at its 176th session (Manila, 8th April 2005)
*


The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of Mr. Riad Seef, a former member of the People’s Council of the Syrian Arab Republic, as outlined in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/176/13(b)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 175th session (October 2004),

Taking account of information provided by one of the sources on 22 November 2004,

Considering the following:

  • The Syrian delegations with which the Committee has had the opportunity to meet have repeatedly stated that Mr. Seef was guilty of corruption, and the authorities also expressed this opinion to the IPU Secretary General during his visit to Damascus in March 2004; they did so despite the fact that Mr. Seef was neither accused nor found guilty of corruption, but of “defamation of the Constitution, unlawful activities and hostility towards the regime” on account of having organised discussion forums;

  • In the light of the information and documents gathered by the Committee’s on-site mission of May 2002, it reached the conclusion that Mr. Seef had been sentenced on account of having exercised his constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression and assembly; it has therefore consistently called on the Head of State and on the parliament to grant Mr. Seef an amnesty;

  • As detailed in the resolution adopted at its 175th session, since September 2002 the Syrian parliamentary authorities had maintained that Mr. Seef would be granted an amnesty, and that action had been taken to that end; yet at the hearing held in Geneva in September 2004 they informed the Committee that in fact the President could grant an amnesty only if the person concerned lodged a petition to such effect; they stated that parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs had confirmed that a pardon petition was necessary for the President to consider a case, and that Mr. Seef had been informed accordingly; according to the authorities, however, he had refused to submit such a petition;

  • Likewise, while at the hearing held during the 109th Assembly (October 2003), the Syrian delegation reported to the Committee that, as a consequence of a presidential amnesty, Mr. Seef’s remaining prison term had been reduced by one third, at the hearing held during the 111th Assembly (September 2004) the delegation stated that Mr. Reef had not been granted a one-third reduction of his remaining sentence, because to be eligible for such a reduction a convict statutorily had to have served three-quarters of his full sentence and, even then, the prisoner would only be eligible if he lodged an application for the purpose;

  • Finally, in May 2002, during the visit of its on-site mission to Damascus, the authorities, contrary to what they had stated before the visit, informed the Committee’s delegation that Syrian law did not allow foreigners to visit Syrian prisoners; the delegation was thus unable to meet Mr. Seef; yet after completion of the mission, the delegation was provided with the Prison Regulations and Modifications, articles 64 and 65 of which would clearly have enabled the authorities to permit the on-site mission to visit Mr. Seef,
Considering that, according to one of the sources, no requests are required for decisions to be taken on general amnesties, since such amnesties are granted on the sole initiative of the President of the Republic or issued through the People’s Council, and that the People’s Council has the right to adopt an amnesty law and to oblige the President to promulgate it,

Considering finally that the Syrian delegation, at the hearing held in September 2004, stated that the parliament remained committed to action in favour of a pardon for Mr. Seef; noting, however, that he has already served more than half of his sentence and is said to be in any case due for release in May 2005, provided he is granted the usual one-third reduction,

  1. Deeply regrets that the parliamentary authorities have not replied to the letters which the Secretary General sent to them on the Committee's behalf;

  2. Deplores the fact that the authorities, in particular the parliamentary authorities, have over time supplied information on important legal issues which later proved wrong; and wholly fails to understand how this could possibly have occurred unless there was an intention to mislead;

  3. Notes with concern that, according to the source and contrary to what the Syrian delegation has affirmed, under Syrian law no request is required for an amnesty to be granted, and would appreciate receiving urgent clarification of this point, together with a copy of the legal rules governing the granting of pardons and amnesties;

  4. Calls once again on the Head of State and, in the light of its stated commitment to take action in favour of Mr. Seef, also on the parliament, to avail themselves of their powers to ensure that he is granted an early release as soon as possible and thus enjoys the same treatment as many other prisoners who have been granted amnesties and released;

  5. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to the authorities and to the sources;

  6. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held on the occasion of the 113th IPU Assembly (October 2005).


* The Syrian delegation expressed its strong reservation regarding the resolution.

 

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 112th IPU Assembly and related meetings in PDF format (file size 495K approximately ). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.Get Acrobat Reader

HOME PAGEred cubeHUMAN RIGHTSred cubeMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYred cubeIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS