"In the United Kingdom, the Proscribed Organizations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialized court with a very distinguished retired High Court judge, with some very experienced and distinguished senior lawyers, ruled in the clearest terms that ‘the PMOI [People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) no longer satisfies any of the criteria necessary for the maintenance of their proscription.’"
Text of speech by Lord Slynn of Hadley, former judge at European Court of Justice in a seminar at the European Parliamentary Association in Strasbourg on April 24, 2008:
Source: Iran Liberation, Issue 267
Since the first time that I was asked to advise on whether men and women in Ashraf were protected persons in international law under the Geneva Convention, I tried to emphasize the importance of the role of the courts in defining and enforcing the law.
The judgment of the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg exemplifies that approach. It was a strong and clear decision that including the PMOI on the list of proscribed organizations was unlawful and wrong.
Without a sufficient statement of reason and in doing so it denied the PMOI a fair hearing. The EU Council of Ministers without appealing simply ignored the ruling and refused to carry out the court’s decision.
That was contrary to the rule of law. There is no doubt in my mind that the Council’s argument that this was only a procedural ruling simply cannot be right and therefore it is necessary to keep up the pressure on the Council to comply with the ruling of the court.
It is now for you as parliamentarians to ensure the Council does carry out the rule of law. In the United Kingdom, the Proscribed Organizations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialized court with a very distinguished retired High Court judge, with some very experienced and distinguished senior lawyers, ruled in the clearest terms that "the PMOI no longer satisfies any of the criteria necessary for the maintenance of their proscription."
In other words, the PMOI is not concerned in terrorism. What stronger and clearer language could you have than that? As a result of that the Commission finally said, "We order that the Secretary of State lay before the Parliament the draft of an order removing the PMOI from the list of proscribed organizations." What stronger language could you have than that. On the evidence they said that it was "perverse."
That is a very strong phrase for a tribunal or a court to use against the activity of a senior minister but they had no doubt about it and if you read the 140 pages of the ruling you will have no doubt either.
The Council in the early days followed the lead of the British government in supporting their resolution that the PMOI should be put on the terrorist list.
We have heard several times that the representatives of other countries saying that we had followed the British.
For the PMOI to be left on the list on a further review requires unanimity of the members of the Council. How can the other states say that they are now obliged as a matter of policy to follow the lead of the British government in order to support this resolution in light of this decision of the tribunal.
Rule of law must apply; the tribunal has spoken and if the British government refuses to obey it, then there is a very strong argument why other states should have doubts about desirability of unanimously supporting this resolution. It needs only one vote to say no and that would be the end of the proscription.
————————-
NCRI Editor’s note:The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (or Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, MEK) is a member of the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
