Previous 1 / 27 Next

INSTANTIE: CONSTITUTIONEEL HOF van de REPUBLIEK SURINAME CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SURINAME ZAAKNUMMER: CH-02 DATUM BESLISSING: 05 AUGUSTUS 2022 PUBLICATIEDATUM: RECHTSGEBIED: Staatsrecht / Internationaal Recht BETREFT: Toetsing ex. artikel 144 Grondwet jo. artikel 12 lid 1 Wet Constitutioneel Hof van de artikelen 9 jo. 24 Kiesregeling op strijdigheid met de Grondwet, alsmede het Internationaal Verdrag inzake Burger en Politieke Rechten (IVBPR), het Amerikaans Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (AVRM) en de Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens (UVRM). Page 1 of 27

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

CH-02

Judgment

Question Presented: Are elements of the national electoral code that define allotment of legislative seats across the country's 10 districts (based off population patterns and anticipated growth in 1987) in conflict with the Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention of Human Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Alleged Acts: The petition filer alleged that Suriname's electoral law led to voter inequality. She cited that rural votes carried significantly more weight than urban votes, as legislative seats were allotted based on population distribution and anticipated growth patterns when the electoral law was first passed in 1987. These allotments failed to account for population growth (particularly in urban areas) in the more than 30 years that had passed since the election law was passed.

Procedural history: Ms. Serena Muntslag-Essed, a lawyer admitted to the bar in Surname, submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court on March 7, 2022.

Summary: Seats within the National Assembly were apportioned across 10 districts within the 1987 Electoral Law, based on the principle of 'positive discrimination' (which allotted more votes to districts that were lagging behind in development and population growth). In the intervening decades, uneven patterns of population growth across the country contributed to a significant imbalance in the weight of individual votes in determining the make up of the Parliament, disadvantaging urban residents in particular. The Constitutional Court found the district-based seat allotments established in the electoral law were no longer permitted, as they conflicted with select articles of the Constitution and Suriname's commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights.

Conclusion: The court ruled that articles of the electoral law (allotting legislative seats across 10 districts based on population density and anticipated growth in 1987) failed to comply with the principles of equality and prohibition of discrimination enshrined in the Constitution, Article 25(b) of the ICCPR, and articles 23 (1)(b) and (24) of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Court also found that the legality of the seat allotment could not be tested against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, due to its non-binding nature.

Legal Issue(s)

Electoral Maps and Districting

Applicable Law(s): Constitution; Electoral Law; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: American Convention on Human Rights; Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

Region: Americas

Country: Suriname

Language of Decision

Dutch

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Aug 5, 2022

Geolocation

Latitude: 3.604431570977407

Longitude: -55.71386933326722

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

CH-02-Besluit-CHof-Afschrift-1.pdf
Dutch
Download View