Previous 23 / 27 Next

the will of the voters; and c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country. 2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. Artikel 23: Recht om deel te nemen in het bestuur Iedere staatsburger heeft het recht deel te nemen aan de behandeling van openbare aangelegenheden, te stemmen en gekozen te worden d.m.v. betrouwbare periodieke verkiezingen en hebben toegang tot openbare diensten. Er is geen strijdigheid hier waargenomen. Artikel 23 AVRM lid 1 de delen a en c hebben dezelfde inhoud als artikel 25 sub a en c IVBPR. Op basis hiervan kan worden gesteld dat artikel 23 a en c AVRM op dezelfde wijze moet worden geïnterpreteerd en getoetst aan artikel 25 sub a en c IVBPR. En kan worden geconcludeerd dat ook hier er dus geen sprake is van strijdigheid. Artikel 23 AVRM lid 1 sub b en artikel 25 sub b IVBPR bespreken dezelfde inhoud en kan hier worden verwezen naar de motivatie van het laatstgenoemd artikel. Article 24. Right to Equal Protection All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. Allen zijn gelijk voor de wet en hebben op basis hiervan recht op gelijke bescherming van de wet. Het Hof verwijst naar zijn eerdere constatering met betrekking tot artikel 8 Grondwet daar artikel 24 AVRM eveneens betrekking heeft op het gelijkheidsbeginsel. Het Hof stelt dat de artikelen 9 jo. 24 Kiesregeling niet verenigbaar zijn met artikel 24 AVRM, nu zij geen gelijkwaardig kiesrecht biedt aan elke Surinamer woonachtig in de verschillende districten. Toetsing artikelen 9 jo. 24 van de Kiesregeling aan de artikelen 7 jo. 21 Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens (UVRM). De UVRM is in 1948 als een verklaring (aanbeveling) aangenomen in de Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties en ontbreekt het formele gezag van een Verdrag dat zij partijen bindt krachtens internationaal recht en is in formele zin niet bindend. Het Hof verwijst naar de door het UVRM geïnspireerde gelijke bepalingen in het IVBPR en AVRM, welke door het Hof bij de beoordeling van de artikelen 9 jo. 24 van de Kiesregeling zijn betrokken. Page 23 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

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

CH-02

Primary Documents

Notifications