The Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the outline of the case of Mr. Anwar Ibrahim, a member of the House of Representatives of Malaysia, as contained in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/167/12(3)-R1), and to the relevant resolution adopted at its 166th session (May 2000),

Taking account of the observations supplied by the Malaysian delegation to the 104th Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (October 2000), together with information provided by the source on 7 July and 12 September 2000,

Recalling the following information on file:

(i) After his arrest in September 1998, Mr. Ibrahim was assaulted by the then Inspector General of Police, Rahim Noor. Following the findings of a specially instituted Royal Commission, Rahim Noor was charged with causing grievous bodily harm. He pleaded guilty only after the charge was amended to the lesser offence of "causing hurt". In March 2000, Rahim Noor was found guilty of that charge, fined US$530 and sentenced to two months' imprisonment - he was granted bail pending appeal;

(ii) Mr. Anwar Ibrahim was found guilty on 14 April 1999 of corrupt practices and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. On 29 April 2000, the Court of Appeal upheld the verdict, ruling that there "was no doubt whatsoever" that Anwar Ibrahim had abused his official powers by ordering police in 1997 to intimidate two people into withdrawing sexual allegations against him. Mr. Ibrahim has now appealed to the last instance, the Federal Court;

(iii) Mr. Karpal Singh, Ibrahim’s defence counsel, stated in court on 10 September 1999 regarding Anwar Ibrahim’s alleged arsenic poisoning: "It could well be that someone out there wants to get rid of him […] even to the extent of murder. I suspect that people in high places are responsible for the situation"- while Kuala Lumpur University Hospital (HUKM) concluded in its expert opinion that Anwar Ibrahim did not show classical clinical signs of acute or chronic arsenic poisoning, it stated that Anwar Ibrahim had developed "a number of medical problems and recommended that HUKM […] continue to assess and follow up on the patient’s health status…",

Considering the rejection on 5 September 2000 by the Malaysian Court of Appeal of the appeal of Mr. Zakaria, one of Anwar Ibrahim’s defence counsel, against his three-month "contempt of court’ jail sentence for having presented in court an affidavit to the effect that the prosecution had attempted to fabricate evidence against Mr. Ibrahim - resulting in this connection the many instances of harassment of Anwar Ibrahim's defence lawyers referred to in the Committee’s report,

Considering that, on 8 August 2000, the Kuala Lumpur High Court found Mr. Ibrahim and his adoptive brother, Mr. Sukma Darmawan, guilty of sodomy and sentenced them to nine and six years imprisonment, respectively, which Anwar Ibrahim will have to serve consecutively with his other six year term,

Considering that the conviction was based primarily on contradictory statements give by Mr. Azizan Abu Bakar, Mr. Ibrahim's chauffeur, and the "confession" of Ibrahim’s adoptive brother Mr. Darmawan, which he had retracted - Mr. Darmawan stated in court that his "confession" had been obtained under duress, detailing that he was stripped naked, slapped, subjected to humiliating verbal abuse, being forced to simulate homosexual acts and threatened with indefinite detention - without ordering an independent investigation, the judge accepted the police’s denial of any abuse and ruled that the confession had been made voluntarily,

Recalling in this connection that two other men, Mr. Munawar Anees, a distinguished Pakistani academic, and Mr. Mior Abdul Razak, a fashion designed, both of whom had been detained earlier because of their close association with Anwar Ibrahim, stated publicly that they were coerced by police into confessing to a sexual relationship with Anwar Ibrahim,

Considering that according to one of the sources, Mr. Ibrahim had to go on a hunger strike to obtain permission for his mother, who was ill, to visit him in prison - noting that according to the Malaysian delegation, Mr. Ibrahim is treated like any other prisoner and even enjoys preferential treatment,

Considering finally that, according to the Malaysian delegation, Mr. Anwar Ibrahim has been found guilty and sentenced in accordance with the law,

1. Thanks the Malaysian delegation for its cooperation and the observations it provided;

2. Is alarmed at the sentencing of Mr. Ibrahim and Mr. Darmawan to nine and six years imprisonment, respectively, particularly in view of the reliable allegations concerning the use of coerced statements of witnesses;

3. Reaffirms that the ill-treatment of Mr. Ibrahim while he was in police custody lends credence to the allegations of coercion of witnesses' statements,

4. Emphatically recalls that, under international human rights standards, allegations of coerced testimony must be promptly and independently investigated, and that they prohibit the use of evidence obtained under duress;

5. Is appalled at the sedition charges brought against Mr. Karpal Singh and the three-month prison sentence against Mr. Zakaria, which was upheld on 5 September 2000 by the Court of Appeal - reaffirms that the legal action taken against the defence counsel strikes at the very heart of the right to fair trial and goes against not only the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers but also Commonwealth jurisprudence, which both recognise that lawyers shall enjoy immunity from prosecution for statements made in court;

6. Can but reiterate its fear, in view of the information on file, that the motives for Anwar Ibrahim’s prosecution on both the corruption and the sodomy charges were not of a legal nature and that his case was built on a presumption of guilt;

7. Remains concerned at the conclusion of Kuala Lumpur University Hospital that Anwar Ibrahim’s state of health has considerably worsened in detention, and call on the authorities to release him pending appeal against the judgments handed down on him;

8. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the appropriate Malaysian authorities;

9. Requests the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session (April 2001).