By DUNDAR GURSES*
Presented as part of the Country Reports
to the 3rd Congress of the
International Association of People's Lawyers
Davao City, Philippines
14 October 2006
We all know about the terrorist listing of Prof. Jose Maria Sison.
At this point, there are three procedures pending:
- European Court of Justice in Luxembourg (Court of the European
Union): procedure against the Council of the European Union
in order to remove Sison from the EU Terrorist list
- European Court on Human Rights in Strasbourg: procedure against
the Netherlands to annul the consequences of the terrorist listing
by the EU
Administrative procedure for his residence permit
- The following is a short excerpt of the procedure in Strasbourg.
As a consequence of the publication of the “terrorist list”
of the Netherlands on 13 August 2002 and of the Council of the
European Union on 28 October 2002, the Netherlands terminated
all social benefits being provided to Prof. Jose Maria Sison,
specifically:
- His bank account was frozen under the apparent authority
of the Netherlands’s 13 August 2002 sanction regulations
against terrorism.
- The termination of housing and social security including a
living allowance, medical insurance, and liability insurance
again under the apparent authority of the sanction regulations.
As a result of the Council of State’s 28 September 2005
decisions, the detrimental effects of the actions of the Netherlands
under the sanction regulations remain. Sison submits that these
detrimental effects, which systematically deprive him of the
basic and essential means of human existence, were reasonably
foreseeable by the Netherlands.
By depriving him of the basic means of human existence and by
relying on the false premise that Sison has a travel document,
he submits that the Dutch government seeks to force him to leave
The Netherlands. By misrepresenting that Sison has the legal means
to voluntarily leave the Netherlands at anytime and, thus, by
further misrepresenting that he can waive the absolute protection
afforded to him under Article 3 of the ECHR (European Convention
on Human Rights), he is at risk of expulsion or deportation by
the Netherlands at anytime.
Sison complains against the following acts of the Netherlands,
which he submits are violations of his rights under the ECHR and
its protocols:
- By misrepresenting Sison as having the legal means to voluntarily
leave the Netherlands at anytime, the Dutch government creates
the legal fiction that it can, thus, expel or deport Sison at
anytime as he can voluntarily waive the protection of Article
3 of the ECHR. This is a clear violation of Article 3 of the
ECHR and the general principle in international law of non-refoulement,
which protects refugees from being returned to places where
their lives or freedom could be threatened, provided for under,
among other international instruments, Article 3 of the UN Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment.
- Sison submits that the Netherlands violates the absolute prohibition
in Article 3 of the ECHR against inhuman and degrading treatment.
The actions to deprive him of the essential means of human existence
and the resulting negative impacts on his physical and mental
health are forms of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment
within the meaning of Article 3 of the ECHR. This treatment
is also in violation of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which declares that, “Everyone has the
right to life, liberty and security of person.”
- Sison further submits that the Netherlands violates Article
2 of the ECHR by threatening his right to life. By depriving
him of the essential means of human existence and by the incitement
of public hatred and violence against him in being identified
by his full name as a terrorist, the Netherlands is in clear
violation of Article 2 of the ECHR. Furthermore, the Netherlands’
acts are violations of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights which states that, “No one shall be subjected
to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the
right to the protection of law against such interference or
attacks.”
- Sison’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions
is violated by his being deprived of money in his bank account,
consisting of a living allowance, savings for dental expenses
not covered by his health insurance policy and insurance reimbursements.
This is a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR.
- Sison’s right to due process is violated by his being
deprived of his property without advance notice and a full and
thorough hearing where he would have an opportunity to know
the case against him and to present his case. Moreover, Sison
is stigmatized as a terrorist by publication of his full name
without any kind of criminal investigation by the Netherlands.
Due process of law is provided for by Article 6 of the ECHR,
Articles 10 and 11.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
- Sison submits that the Netherlands discriminates against him
on the basis of his political beliefs. Sison submits that the
Netherlands’s acts violate Article 14 of the ECHR and
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
afford an individual equal protection of the law. Specifically,
Sison argues that he is deprived of the essential or minimal
means of human existence, such as food and medical care, which
The Netherlands must provide even to convicted criminals. By
seeking to justify its actions on the basis of Sison’s
listing as a “terrorist,” the Netherlands discriminates
against him. Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights is also, thus, violated.
- Finally, Sison’s right to respect for private and family
life under Article 8 of the ECHR is violated by the continuing
order to evict him from his current residence and expel him
from The Netherlands on the basis of the misrepresentation that
Sison has a valid travel document. The Netherlands has stated
in court hearings that Sison can be immediately expelled and
that he is now in so-called “injury time”. Furthermore,
the Netherlands publicly declared that Sison’s wife has
made herself guilty and criminally liable by harboring in her
home Sison, who is branded a “terrorist”. #
* Mr. Gurses is one of Professor Sison’s lawyers in his legal cases in Europe.
|