- No confusion over guidelines
- Commission earlier misinterpreted guidelines
- Information sharing carried out independently
Human Rights Commission of the Maldives denies there are any issues in sharing information or restrictions on fulfilling their mandate, especially after the 2015 guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of the Maldives.
The 2015 guideline was issued after the suo moto case reviewed by the Supreme Court
A statement released by the Commission denied that the Supreme Court ruling had hampered the Commission's legal mandate and the Commission's integrity and independence. The statement said such statements had no basis in fact.
The Commission issued the statement after former members of the Commission Ahmed Tholal and Jeehan Mahmood filed case in UN Human Rights Committee, which said that "the Maldives’ failure to ensure their right to share information freely with the UN without reprisal" and asked for a ruling on the issue.
HRCM said initially there were some confusion on the guidelines and the Commission had at first misinterpreted the guidelines. But, following legal advice from Chief Justice Abdullah Saeed, the Commission said they had passed to send information and reports directly to concerned foreign parties.
"The Supreme Court guidelines do not hamper on the Commission's legal mandate and fulfilling the legal obligations set to the Commission in the Constitution, Human Rights Commission act and international agreements signed by the nation," the Commission said.
The Commission added they have fully complied with the 11 point guideline issued by the Supreme Court.
HRCM condemned the case filed against the Maldives. The Commission said the case was filed without checking the processes of the Commission and had questioned the Commission's independence, mandate and integrity.
Ahmed Tholal and Jeehan Mahmood said they were seeking a ruling from the Committee because they want the HRCM’s right to freely communicate with international human rights mechanisms to be firmly preserved in law and practice. ‘If the HRCM is not able to communicate freely with the UN, its ability to carry out its mandate is severely undermined. This case isn’t just about the HRCM of 2010. Rather it’s about the far reaching implications such reprisals will have on the independence and integrity of NHRI’s everywhere,’ they said.
The communication prepared for Ahmed Tholal and Jeehan Mahmood by ISHR outlines the case for the Committee to find that the Maldives is in breach of its obligation to uphold the right to free expression by prosecuting the HRCM for the content of its communications to the UN and by limiting future communication between the HRCM and the UN. ISHR further submitted that the restrictions constitute a reprisal for accessing and communicating with the UN and fall short of the requirements for permissible restrictions on freedom of expression in international law.
