|
OInternational Committee
DEFEND
International Committee to DEFEND Filipino Progressives in Europe
APPRECIATION FOR FIVE MEMBERS OF DUTCH SENATE
FOR QUESTIONS ON THE PLIGHT OF PROF. JOSE MARIA SISON
9 November 2009
We, the International Committee DEFEND, wish to express our heartfelt
gratitude and high appreciation to five members of the Dutch First Chamber
(Senate), who belong to various major parties, for raising last 3 November
2009 questions aimed at upholding the rule of law and the human rights of
Professor Jose Maria Sison.
The aforesaid members of the Senate are Ms M. H. A. Strik (Groen Links),
Ms M. Westerveld (Partij van de Arbeid ), H. Franken (Christen
Democratisch Appel), Ms A. C. Quik-Schuijt (Socialist Party) and J. W. M.
Engels (D 66).
They addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of
Justice, the State Secretary of Justice and the Minister of Social Affairs
and Work Opportunity the following questions:
1. Is the government aware of the judgment of the Court of first instance
of 30 September 2009, whereby the Court declared null Regulation (EC) no.
501/2009 and the related Decisions from 2007, insofar as these concern Mr.
Sison? (1)
2. Is higher appeal being considered against this judgment? What position
shall the Dutch government take during the discussion in the Council on
this possibility, also taking into consideration that the Court of first
instance considers all earlier invoked grounds to put Mr. Sison on the
list do not give any basis for such placement [on the list]. Will the
government suggest to the Council new grounds for placement on the list?
If so, what new grounds?
3. Do you consider the ruling of the REK of 1997 still sufficient
substantiation for the decision not to grant Mr. Sison a residence permit,
since Article 13 and 18 of the Definition guidelines (2) oblige the
granting of permit as soon as the right to protection is established? Do
you still see reasons for the application of an exclusion ground from this
guideline, now that the judicial power both in the Philippines and in The
Netherlands has rejected every criminal prosecution?
4. Do you consider that the continuing refusal of a residence permit to
the concerned still proportional? Can you in your answer present the
criteria which the Administrative Law Division of the Raad van State
[Council of State] of 2 June 2004 formulated (3) and the fact that
according to the ruling of 1997 there was insufficient ground to invoke
Article 1 (F) of the Refugee Convention against the concerned?
|
5. Is it just that the
concerned on the ground of Article 3 EVRM cannot be expelled from The
Netherlands and yet every assistance for basic needs for survival is
denied him? If so, do
you consider this to be in accordance with the fundamental rights as
guaranteed in the ESH [European Social Charter], the EVRM and the Charter
for Fundamental Rights? How do you judge in this light the applicability
of Article 9 and 11 IVESCR [International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights], also taking into account the hereto pertinent General
Comments from 2008 and Conclusion 11 of the Concluding Observations of
2006 of the UN Committee of this convention (CESCR)? (4)
We hope that the foregoing questions will encourage the Dutch government
to respect and give due course to the 30 September 2009 judgment of the
European Court of First Instance in favor of Prof. Sison against the
Council of the European Union (EU) for unjustly putting him on the
terrorist blacklist.
We call on the Dutch government to desist from becoming a party to the
filing of a frivolous appeal by the Council of EU or be responsible for
any other undertaking to prevent and delay the justice that Prof. Sison
deserves. We urge the Dutch government to allow Prof. Sison to enjoy his
fundamental rights and live a normal life in The Netherlands.
We hope that the Dutch government will heed the just purpose of the
questions from the broad nonpartisan array of senators, including members
of parties in the ruling coalition as well as those in the opposition.
The Senate plays a major role in scrutinizing the actions of the
Government. Statements made by government ministers in debates carry
weight in future lawsuits. The members of the Senate can elicit
undertakings from ministers about the implementation of a law.###
(1) Judgment of the Court (Seventh chamber) of 30 September 2009,
T-341/07.
(2) Guideline 2004/83/EC
(3) Case no. 200308845/1, JV 2004/279.
(4) General Comment no. 19, 2008, paragraph 31, 34 and 36 up to and
including 38, and paragraph 50 and 51; Concluding Observations, 24
November 2006, conclusion 11.
For reference:
Ruth de Leon
International Coordinator-DEFEND
Telephone: 00-31-30-8895306 Email: defenddemrights@yahoo.com |
