Suriname: Constitutional Court finished reviewing amended Amnesty Act

The review of the amended Amnesty Act, whether or not it is in conflict with the Constitution and / or international law agreements, has already been completed. The findings have also been finalized in draft, the chairman of the Constitutional Court (CHof), Gloria Karg-Stirling, informs Suriname Herald. The CHof’s decision will be announced during a public session.

However, a public hearing cannot be called yet, because the legal status of the deputy secretary of the CHof must first be corrected, Stirling explains. The secretary must also sign for the decision that has been put down in writing. Only then can a public hearing be held when he signs the document. The chairman of the CHof hopes that this will be done as soon as possible.

In order to be able to test the law, the CHof had to hear experts in this field and carry out a literature search. In addition, it was investigated whether lawsuits have already been filed about the alleged law. All members of the CHof have had to conduct a scientific investigation. It was not easy to test the amended Amnesty Act, given that the CHof had to deal with all kinds of unforeseen circumstances in both operational and administrative areas. This is how Chof had to do it with minimal line-ups.

The CHof is charged with checking the content of laws or parts thereof against the Constitution and against applicable agreements with other powers and with international organizations (Article 144, paragraph 2, sub a of the Constitution). The Court is only authorized to judge whether there is a conflict with the Constitution or international law agreements, but not to declare the law or part thereof ineffective.

If the CHof judges that there is a conflict with the Constitution or an international law agreement, the relevant law or part thereof is deemed to be ineffective (Article 144, paragraph 3). That is why it is not the Court that declares non-binding (so no constitutive decision of the Court in this regard), but it is the constitutional legislator himself who has linked to the decision of the CH or the legal effect of becoming non-binding (ie non-binding ipso jure).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s