| SURINAME Republic of Suriname Republiek Suriname Joined United Nations: 4 December 1975 Human Rights as assured by their constitution Click here Updated 08/12/10 |
| CAPITAL |
| POPULATION |
| CHIEF OF STATE |
| SELECTION PROCESS |
Paramaribo
486,618 (July 2010 est.)
Dési Bouterse
President since 12 August 2010
President since 12 August 2010
President and vice president elected by the National Assembly
or, if no presidential or vice presidential candidate receives a
two-thirds constitutional majority in the National Assembly after
two votes, by a simple majority in the larger United People's
Assembly for five-year terms (no term limits); election last held
19 July 2010
Next scheduled election: July 2015
or, if no presidential or vice presidential candidate receives a
two-thirds constitutional majority in the National Assembly after
two votes, by a simple majority in the larger United People's
Assembly for five-year terms (no term limits); election last held
19 July 2010
Next scheduled election: July 2015
| HEAD OF GOVERNMENT |
Robert Ameerali
Vice President since 12 August 2010
Vice President since 12 August 2010
The president is both chief of state and head of government
| DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS |
| ETHNIC GROUPS |
Hindustani (also known locally as "East Indians"; their ancestors emigrated from northern India in the latter part of the
19th century) 37%, Creole (mixed white and black) 31%, Javanese 15%, "Maroons" (their African ancestors were
brought to the country in the 17th and 18th centuries as slaves and escaped to the interior) 10%, Amerindian 2%,
Chinese 2%, white 1%, other 2%
19th century) 37%, Creole (mixed white and black) 31%, Javanese 15%, "Maroons" (their African ancestors were
brought to the country in the 17th and 18th centuries as slaves and escaped to the interior) 10%, Amerindian 2%,
Chinese 2%, white 1%, other 2%
| RELIGIONS |
Hindu 27.4%, Protestant 25.2% (predominantly Moravian), Roman Catholic 22.8%, Muslim 19.6%, indigenous
beliefs 5%
beliefs 5%
| GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE |
Constitutional democracy comprised of 10 districts (distrikten, singular - distrikt); Legal system is based on Dutch
legal system incorporating French penal theory; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations
Executive: president and vice president elected on the same ticket by two-thirds constitutional majority in the National
Assembly after two votes, by a simple majority in the larger United People's Assembly for a five-year term (no term limits);
election last held 19 July 2010; (next to be held in July 2015)
Legislative: Unicameral National Assembly or Nationale Assemblee (51 seats; members are elected by popular
vote to serve five-year terms)
elections: last held 19 July 2010 (next to be held in July 2015)
Judicial: Cantonal Courts and a Court of Justice as an appellate court (justices are nominated for life)
legal system incorporating French penal theory; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations
Executive: president and vice president elected on the same ticket by two-thirds constitutional majority in the National
Assembly after two votes, by a simple majority in the larger United People's Assembly for a five-year term (no term limits);
election last held 19 July 2010; (next to be held in July 2015)
Legislative: Unicameral National Assembly or Nationale Assemblee (51 seats; members are elected by popular
vote to serve five-year terms)
elections: last held 19 July 2010 (next to be held in July 2015)
Judicial: Cantonal Courts and a Court of Justice as an appellate court (justices are nominated for life)
| LANGUAGES |
Dutch (official), English (widely spoken), Sranang Tongo (Surinamese, sometimes called Taki-Taki, is native
language of Creoles and much of the younger population and is lingua franca among others), Hindustani (a dialect of
Hindi), Javanese
language of Creoles and much of the younger population and is lingua franca among others), Hindustani (a dialect of
Hindi), Javanese
| BRIEF HISTORY |
| ECONOMIC OVERVIEW |
The economy is dominated by the mining industry, with exports of alumina, gold, and oil accounting for about 85% of
exports and 25% of government revenues, making the economy highly vulnerable to mineral price volatility.
Prospects for local onshore oil production are good, and a drilling program is underway. Offshore oil drilling was
given a boost in 2004 when the State Oil Company (Staatsolie) signed exploration agreements with several Western
oil companies. Bidding on these new offshore blocks was completed in July 2006. The short-term economic outlook
depends on the government's ability to control inflation and on the development of projects in the bauxite and gold
mining sectors, though investment in these projects may slow with the tightening of global credit markets. Suriname
has received aid for these projects from Netherlands, Belgium, and the European Development Fund. Suriname's
economic prospects for the medium term will depend on continued commitment to responsible monetary and fiscal
policies and to the introduction of structural reforms to liberalize markets and promote competition. In 2000, the
government of Ronald VENETIAAN, returned to office and inherited an economy with inflation of over 100% and a
growing fiscal deficit. He quickly implemented an austerity program, raised taxes, attempted to control spending, and
tamed inflation. The VENETIAAN administration also has created a stabilization fund to insulate future revenue from
commodity shocks. These economic policies are likely to remain in effect during VENETIAAN's third term.
Source: CIA World Factbook (select Suriname)
exports and 25% of government revenues, making the economy highly vulnerable to mineral price volatility.
Prospects for local onshore oil production are good, and a drilling program is underway. Offshore oil drilling was
given a boost in 2004 when the State Oil Company (Staatsolie) signed exploration agreements with several Western
oil companies. Bidding on these new offshore blocks was completed in July 2006. The short-term economic outlook
depends on the government's ability to control inflation and on the development of projects in the bauxite and gold
mining sectors, though investment in these projects may slow with the tightening of global credit markets. Suriname
has received aid for these projects from Netherlands, Belgium, and the European Development Fund. Suriname's
economic prospects for the medium term will depend on continued commitment to responsible monetary and fiscal
policies and to the introduction of structural reforms to liberalize markets and promote competition. In 2000, the
government of Ronald VENETIAAN, returned to office and inherited an economy with inflation of over 100% and a
growing fiscal deficit. He quickly implemented an austerity program, raised taxes, attempted to control spending, and
tamed inflation. The VENETIAAN administration also has created a stabilization fund to insulate future revenue from
commodity shocks. These economic policies are likely to remain in effect during VENETIAAN's third term.
Source: CIA World Factbook (select Suriname)
| POLITICAL CLIMATE |
The economy is dominated by the mining industry, with exports of alumina, gold, and oil accounting for about 85% of
exports and 25% of government revenues, making the economy highly vulnerable to mineral price volatility. In 2000,
the government of Ronald VENETIAAN, returned to office and inherited an economy with inflation of over 100%
and a growing fiscal deficit. He quickly implemented an austerity program, raised taxes, attempted to control
spending, and tamed inflation. Economic growth reached about 6% in 2007 and 2008, owing to sizeable foreign
investment in mining and oil. Suriname has received aid for projects in the bauxite and gold mining sectors from
Netherlands, Belgium, and the European Development Fund. The economy contracted in 2009, however, as
investment waned and the country earned less from its commodity exports when global prices for most commodities
fell. As trade picks up, Suriname's economic outlook for 2010 has improved, but the government's budget is likely to
remain strained, with increased social spending in this election year. Suriname's economic prospects for the medium
term will depend on continued commitment to responsible monetary and fiscal policies and to the introduction of
structural reforms to liberalize markets and promote competition.
exports and 25% of government revenues, making the economy highly vulnerable to mineral price volatility. In 2000,
the government of Ronald VENETIAAN, returned to office and inherited an economy with inflation of over 100%
and a growing fiscal deficit. He quickly implemented an austerity program, raised taxes, attempted to control
spending, and tamed inflation. Economic growth reached about 6% in 2007 and 2008, owing to sizeable foreign
investment in mining and oil. Suriname has received aid for projects in the bauxite and gold mining sectors from
Netherlands, Belgium, and the European Development Fund. The economy contracted in 2009, however, as
investment waned and the country earned less from its commodity exports when global prices for most commodities
fell. As trade picks up, Suriname's economic outlook for 2010 has improved, but the government's budget is likely to
remain strained, with increased social spending in this election year. Suriname's economic prospects for the medium
term will depend on continued commitment to responsible monetary and fiscal policies and to the introduction of
structural reforms to liberalize markets and promote competition.
| INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES |
Area claimed by French Guiana between Riviere Litani and Riviere Marouini (both headwaters of the Lawa);
Suriname claims a triangle of land between the New and Kutari/Koetari rivers in a historic dispute over the
headwaters of the Courantyne; Guyana seeks United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
arbitration to resolve the long-standing dispute with Suriname over the axis of the territorial sea boundary in
potentially oil-rich waters
Suriname claims a triangle of land between the New and Kutari/Koetari rivers in a historic dispute over the
headwaters of the Courantyne; Guyana seeks United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
arbitration to resolve the long-standing dispute with Suriname over the axis of the territorial sea boundary in
potentially oil-rich waters
| TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS |
None reported.
| ILLICIT DRUGS |
Growing transshipment point for South American drugs destined for Europe via the Netherlands and Brazil;
transshipment point for arms-for-drugs dealing
transshipment point for arms-for-drugs dealing
| HUMAN RIGHTS STATEMENTS, ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUES |
2009 Human Rights Report: Suriname
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010
Suriname is a constitutional democracy, with a president elected by the unicameral legislature or by the larger United People's
Assembly. The population is approximately 524,000. After generally free and fair elections in 2005, the New Front Plus
government, consisting of a coalition of eight political parties, was formed. In 2005 the United People's Assembly reelected Ronald
Venetiaan as president. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.
The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens. However, there were problems in some areas, including:
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010
Suriname is a constitutional democracy, with a president elected by the unicameral legislature or by the larger United People's
Assembly. The population is approximately 524,000. After generally free and fair elections in 2005, the New Front Plus
government, consisting of a coalition of eight political parties, was formed. In 2005 the United People's Assembly reelected Ronald
Venetiaan as president. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.
The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens. However, there were problems in some areas, including:
- overcrowded detention facilities;
- an overwhelmed judiciary with a large case backlog;
- lengthy pretrial detention;
- self-censorship by some media;
- governmental corruption;
- societal discrimination against women, minorities, and indigenous people;
- violence against women;
- trafficking in women, girls, and boys;
- child labor in the informal sector.
3 March 2009
COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Seventy-fourth session
16 February – 6 March 2009
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION
Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
SURINAME
A. Introduction
2. The Committee welcomes the eleventh and twelfth periodic reports submitted by the State Party. The Committee also expresses
appreciation for renewed dialogue with the State Party and appreciates the responses provided by the delegation to some of the
Committee’s questions.
3. The Committee regrets that sufficient information on the concrete implementation of the Convention and the steps taken to carry
out the previous concluding observations is not contained in the report. Similarly, it regrets the fact that the report, its general form,
and contents are not consistent with the Committee’s guidelines.
B. Positive aspects
4. The Committee welcomes the support of the State Party in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples in September 2007.
5. Despite challenges and limited resources in terms of finances and manpower, the State Party has made efforts to present its
report to the Committee, indicating its commitment to the letter and spirit of the Convention.
C. Concerns and recommendations
10. The Committee notes with concern that the information provided by the State Party regarding the implementation of its
previous concluding observations (2004) and steps taken to give effect to the Committee’s decisions under the early warning and
urgent action procedures in 2003, 2005, and 2006 is insufficient.
The State Party is invited to comply with all recommendations and decisions addressed to it by the Committee and take all
necessary steps to ensure that national legislation and its implementation guarantee the effective enjoyment of all Convention rights
in the State party. The Committee would like to have information on this subject in the State party’s next periodic report.
Click here to read more »
COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Seventy-fourth session
16 February – 6 March 2009
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION
Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
SURINAME
A. Introduction
2. The Committee welcomes the eleventh and twelfth periodic reports submitted by the State Party. The Committee also expresses
appreciation for renewed dialogue with the State Party and appreciates the responses provided by the delegation to some of the
Committee’s questions.
3. The Committee regrets that sufficient information on the concrete implementation of the Convention and the steps taken to carry
out the previous concluding observations is not contained in the report. Similarly, it regrets the fact that the report, its general form,
and contents are not consistent with the Committee’s guidelines.
B. Positive aspects
4. The Committee welcomes the support of the State Party in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples in September 2007.
5. Despite challenges and limited resources in terms of finances and manpower, the State Party has made efforts to present its
report to the Committee, indicating its commitment to the letter and spirit of the Convention.
C. Concerns and recommendations
10. The Committee notes with concern that the information provided by the State Party regarding the implementation of its
previous concluding observations (2004) and steps taken to give effect to the Committee’s decisions under the early warning and
urgent action procedures in 2003, 2005, and 2006 is insufficient.
The State Party is invited to comply with all recommendations and decisions addressed to it by the Committee and take all
necessary steps to ensure that national legislation and its implementation guarantee the effective enjoyment of all Convention rights
in the State party. The Committee would like to have information on this subject in the State party’s next periodic report.
Click here to read more »
FREEDOM IN THE WORLD REPORT- 2010
Political Rights Score: 2
Civil Liberties Score: 2
Status: Free
Overview
Following controversies and delays, the trial of opposition politician and former coup leader Desi Bouterse for the “December
murders” of 15 political opponents in 1982 remained the top political issue in Suriname in 2009. Meanwhile, the forced deportations
of Guyanese migrants from Suriname heightened tensions between the two countries.
In 2007, Suriname’s courts ordered officials to proceed with the long-delayed prosecution of Bouterse and nine other suspects for
the 1982 “December murders.” Bouterse has denied any involvement in the killings, although in March 2007, he accepted political
responsibility for the slayings while offering a public apology.The trial, which is regarded as a landmark test of Suriname’s judicial
system, began in November 2008 and has dominated the political debate over the past two years. In 2009, following frequent
delays, the Bouterse trial advanced, including the testimony of six bystanders who had fled the country and settled in the
Netherlands after witnessing the executions. The former dictator, who consistently failed to appear in court, faces a sentence of up
to 20 years in prison if convicted.
President Venetiaan announced that legislative elections would be held on May 25, 2010 and called for a peaceful electoral
campaign, although the political climate with the opposition remained tense.
Suriname is an electoral democracy. The 1987 constitution provides for a unicameral, 51-seat National Assembly, elected by
proportional representation to five-year terms. The body elects the president to five-year terms with a two-thirds majority. If it is
unable to do so, a United People’s Assembly—consisting of lawmakers from the national, regional, and local levels—convenes to
choose the president by a simple majority. A Council of State (Raad van State) made up of the president and representatives of
major societal groupings—including labor unions, business, the military, and the legislature—has veto power over legislation
deemed to violate the constitution.
Political parties largely reflect the cleavages in Suriname’s ethnically diverse society, although political-racial discord is much less
acute than in neighboring Guyana. Suriname’s major parties include the NDP, the National Party Suriname (NPS), and the People’s
Alliance for Progress (VVV). The current administration has support from the NF, a political alliance of which the NPS is a leading
member.
Click here to read more »
Political Rights Score: 2
Civil Liberties Score: 2
Status: Free
Overview
Following controversies and delays, the trial of opposition politician and former coup leader Desi Bouterse for the “December
murders” of 15 political opponents in 1982 remained the top political issue in Suriname in 2009. Meanwhile, the forced deportations
of Guyanese migrants from Suriname heightened tensions between the two countries.
In 2007, Suriname’s courts ordered officials to proceed with the long-delayed prosecution of Bouterse and nine other suspects for
the 1982 “December murders.” Bouterse has denied any involvement in the killings, although in March 2007, he accepted political
responsibility for the slayings while offering a public apology.The trial, which is regarded as a landmark test of Suriname’s judicial
system, began in November 2008 and has dominated the political debate over the past two years. In 2009, following frequent
delays, the Bouterse trial advanced, including the testimony of six bystanders who had fled the country and settled in the
Netherlands after witnessing the executions. The former dictator, who consistently failed to appear in court, faces a sentence of up
to 20 years in prison if convicted.
President Venetiaan announced that legislative elections would be held on May 25, 2010 and called for a peaceful electoral
campaign, although the political climate with the opposition remained tense.
Suriname is an electoral democracy. The 1987 constitution provides for a unicameral, 51-seat National Assembly, elected by
proportional representation to five-year terms. The body elects the president to five-year terms with a two-thirds majority. If it is
unable to do so, a United People’s Assembly—consisting of lawmakers from the national, regional, and local levels—convenes to
choose the president by a simple majority. A Council of State (Raad van State) made up of the president and representatives of
major societal groupings—including labor unions, business, the military, and the legislature—has veto power over legislation
deemed to violate the constitution.
Political parties largely reflect the cleavages in Suriname’s ethnically diverse society, although political-racial discord is much less
acute than in neighboring Guyana. Suriname’s major parties include the NDP, the National Party Suriname (NPS), and the People’s
Alliance for Progress (VVV). The current administration has support from the NF, a political alliance of which the NPS is a leading
member.
Click here to read more »
Summit of the Americas fails to address human rights
20 April 2009
The fifth Summit of the Americas has failed to recognize that human rights must be placed at the centre of efforts to confront the
many fundamental challenges facing the region.
Governments from every country in the Americas, except for Cuba, took part in the four-yearly meeting held in Port of Spain,
Trinidad and Tobago, between 17 and 19 April.
The 34 heads of state and government discussed the Summit's three principal themes: human prosperity, energy security and
environmental sustainability.
The Declaration of Commitment of Port of Spain was adopted by consensus at the close of the Summit on 19 April. Based on the
three themes, the Declaration fails to lay out a clear human rights framework for progress in these areas.
A number of governments, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Honduras, indicated that they were not prepared to formally
sign the Declaration. Leaders agreed to instead adopt it by consensus and have Trinidadian Prime Minister Manning sign on behalf
of all leaders.
The governments that had registered objections did not feel that the Declaration deals adequately with the current global economic
crisis. They also wanted to see strong references to the issue of Cuba's reintegration into Organization of American States (OAS)
and the lifting of the US embargo against Cuba.
Amnesty International delegates at the Summit urged the governments of the region to make a firm commitment to ensuring that all
measures taken in response to the current global economic crisis fully conform to their human rights obligations. But the
recognition in the Declaration of the responsibility governments have to address the crisis does not acknowledge human rights at all.
"At a time of global economic turmoil and with a new spirit of compromise in the air between the government of US President
Barrack Obama and other governments in the Americas this Summit offered an unparalleled opportunity to lay out a strong human
rights vision for the Americas," said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada, who was part of the Amnesty
International delegation at the Summit. "Instead, human rights have once again been pushed to the back."
Amnesty International had made a number of recommendations as to ways in which an earlier draft of the Declaration needed to be
strengthened with regard to human rights. The organization said it was disappointed that there were no such improvements in the
final Declaration.
Click here to read more »
20 April 2009
The fifth Summit of the Americas has failed to recognize that human rights must be placed at the centre of efforts to confront the
many fundamental challenges facing the region.
Governments from every country in the Americas, except for Cuba, took part in the four-yearly meeting held in Port of Spain,
Trinidad and Tobago, between 17 and 19 April.
The 34 heads of state and government discussed the Summit's three principal themes: human prosperity, energy security and
environmental sustainability.
The Declaration of Commitment of Port of Spain was adopted by consensus at the close of the Summit on 19 April. Based on the
three themes, the Declaration fails to lay out a clear human rights framework for progress in these areas.
A number of governments, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Honduras, indicated that they were not prepared to formally
sign the Declaration. Leaders agreed to instead adopt it by consensus and have Trinidadian Prime Minister Manning sign on behalf
of all leaders.
The governments that had registered objections did not feel that the Declaration deals adequately with the current global economic
crisis. They also wanted to see strong references to the issue of Cuba's reintegration into Organization of American States (OAS)
and the lifting of the US embargo against Cuba.
Amnesty International delegates at the Summit urged the governments of the region to make a firm commitment to ensuring that all
measures taken in response to the current global economic crisis fully conform to their human rights obligations. But the
recognition in the Declaration of the responsibility governments have to address the crisis does not acknowledge human rights at all.
"At a time of global economic turmoil and with a new spirit of compromise in the air between the government of US President
Barrack Obama and other governments in the Americas this Summit offered an unparalleled opportunity to lay out a strong human
rights vision for the Americas," said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada, who was part of the Amnesty
International delegation at the Summit. "Instead, human rights have once again been pushed to the back."
Amnesty International had made a number of recommendations as to ways in which an earlier draft of the Declaration needed to be
strengthened with regard to human rights. The organization said it was disappointed that there were no such improvements in the
final Declaration.
Click here to read more »
The Netherlands: Discrimination in the Name of Integration
May 13, 2008
Summary
In the past three years the authorities in the Netherlands have introduced a series of measures with the stated aim of better
integrating its migrant population. The two key measures are integration tests–one administered in the Netherlands that most foreign
residents must take, and another that must be passed by would-be family migrants from some countries before they can join
spouses or family members in the Netherlands.
The policies were adopted during a period of heightened public concern about the impact that migrant communities have on social
cohesion, with a particular criticism of the supposed lack of integration among Moroccan and Turkish migrant communities.
It is the second policy–the overseas integration test in force since 2006–that raises the greatest human rights concerns. Unlike the
integration test in the Netherlands, introduced in 2007 and which most foreign nationals must pass in order to obtain long-term
residence, the overseas integration test applies only to nationals of some countries wishing to join family members or spouses in the
Netherlands. (The test also applies to family members of Dutch citizens). Citizens of European Union (EU) and European Economic
Area (EEA) states and Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and the United States (US) are not
required to take the test.
In practice, the overseas integration test targets would-be family migrants from the countries of origin of two of the three largest
migrant communities in the Netherlands–Moroccans and Turks–as government documents published when the draft measure was
presented to parliament make clear. (Migrants from the former Dutch colony Suriname, the other large migrant community, are
partially exempt from the provisions, if they have completed of primary education in Dutch language, as Dutch is the official
language and is the teaching language in schools).
The test is an additional requirement on top of financial restrictions on family formation and reunification introduced in 2004, the
latter of which apply also to Dutch and to some extent EU citizens and residents wishing to bring non-Dutch family members,
including spouses, to the Netherlands. In addition to the fees and other costs related to the test and application for family migration,
family members in the Netherlands must demonstrate that they earn sufficient income to support themselves and their family
member backed by a longer-term employment, (while self-employed persons have to prove sufficient profit for the current and
immediately preceding financial years).
Click here to read more »
May 13, 2008
Summary
In the past three years the authorities in the Netherlands have introduced a series of measures with the stated aim of better
integrating its migrant population. The two key measures are integration tests–one administered in the Netherlands that most foreign
residents must take, and another that must be passed by would-be family migrants from some countries before they can join
spouses or family members in the Netherlands.
The policies were adopted during a period of heightened public concern about the impact that migrant communities have on social
cohesion, with a particular criticism of the supposed lack of integration among Moroccan and Turkish migrant communities.
It is the second policy–the overseas integration test in force since 2006–that raises the greatest human rights concerns. Unlike the
integration test in the Netherlands, introduced in 2007 and which most foreign nationals must pass in order to obtain long-term
residence, the overseas integration test applies only to nationals of some countries wishing to join family members or spouses in the
Netherlands. (The test also applies to family members of Dutch citizens). Citizens of European Union (EU) and European Economic
Area (EEA) states and Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and the United States (US) are not
required to take the test.
In practice, the overseas integration test targets would-be family migrants from the countries of origin of two of the three largest
migrant communities in the Netherlands–Moroccans and Turks–as government documents published when the draft measure was
presented to parliament make clear. (Migrants from the former Dutch colony Suriname, the other large migrant community, are
partially exempt from the provisions, if they have completed of primary education in Dutch language, as Dutch is the official
language and is the teaching language in schools).
The test is an additional requirement on top of financial restrictions on family formation and reunification introduced in 2004, the
latter of which apply also to Dutch and to some extent EU citizens and residents wishing to bring non-Dutch family members,
including spouses, to the Netherlands. In addition to the fees and other costs related to the test and application for family migration,
family members in the Netherlands must demonstrate that they earn sufficient income to support themselves and their family
member backed by a longer-term employment, (while self-employed persons have to prove sufficient profit for the current and
immediately preceding financial years).
Click here to read more »
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SURINAME, HIS EXCELLENCY RUNALDO RONALD
VENETIAAN, ON THE OCCASION OF THE OPENING OF THE REGIONAL YOUTH FORUM OF CARICOM
ON 27 JANUARY 2010
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This forum takes place at an appropriate time – at the commencement of the International Year of the Youth and on the eve of the
presentation of the Commission on Youth Development’s report to CARICOM Heads of Government.
Youth leaders from across the region have come together to discuss issues of importance to them. CARICOM Youth
Ambassadors, national youth councils and other youth organizations/NGOs and CBOs, have converged to discuss their role in
regional integration and, in that regard, the CSME.
The Commission’s report on the situation of Caribbean youth makes it clear that time is not on the Community’s side if we are to
remain competitive in this era of globalization. The issues are complex – economic decline, ineffective education systems, declining
influence of family, community, school; the flight of skills to countries outside of the region, escalating crime and violence, HIV
and AIDS, environmental degradation, dynamic social and economic change, an inability to keep pace with constantly changing
technologies, cultural penetration, and the list goes on and on.
The issues highlighted by the Commission are not new but their scope, impact and intensity have reached crisis proportions in most
parts of the Caribbean. The development of legal and economic systems to counter the threat of globalization has occupied the
attention of Heads of Government for two decades, and Governments, with support from development partners, have invested
millions of dollars during that same period in skills training, entrepreneurship, adolescent health and healthy sexuality and other
initiatives targeting youth. Today, however, it is clear that the social and economic infrastructure in CARICOM and Associate
States is under threat, in particular in relation to the CARICOM Youth.
It is clear that we cannot, in this, the 21st century, make a distinction between youth development, human and social development
and regional development systems. It is equally clear that regional integration is not optional. Radical change is necessary.
Click here to read more »
VENETIAAN, ON THE OCCASION OF THE OPENING OF THE REGIONAL YOUTH FORUM OF CARICOM
ON 27 JANUARY 2010
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This forum takes place at an appropriate time – at the commencement of the International Year of the Youth and on the eve of the
presentation of the Commission on Youth Development’s report to CARICOM Heads of Government.
Youth leaders from across the region have come together to discuss issues of importance to them. CARICOM Youth
Ambassadors, national youth councils and other youth organizations/NGOs and CBOs, have converged to discuss their role in
regional integration and, in that regard, the CSME.
The Commission’s report on the situation of Caribbean youth makes it clear that time is not on the Community’s side if we are to
remain competitive in this era of globalization. The issues are complex – economic decline, ineffective education systems, declining
influence of family, community, school; the flight of skills to countries outside of the region, escalating crime and violence, HIV
and AIDS, environmental degradation, dynamic social and economic change, an inability to keep pace with constantly changing
technologies, cultural penetration, and the list goes on and on.
The issues highlighted by the Commission are not new but their scope, impact and intensity have reached crisis proportions in most
parts of the Caribbean. The development of legal and economic systems to counter the threat of globalization has occupied the
attention of Heads of Government for two decades, and Governments, with support from development partners, have invested
millions of dollars during that same period in skills training, entrepreneurship, adolescent health and healthy sexuality and other
initiatives targeting youth. Today, however, it is clear that the social and economic infrastructure in CARICOM and Associate
States is under threat, in particular in relation to the CARICOM Youth.
It is clear that we cannot, in this, the 21st century, make a distinction between youth development, human and social development
and regional development systems. It is equally clear that regional integration is not optional. Radical change is necessary.
Click here to read more »
TRANSLATED FROM DUTCH BY GOOGLE TRANSLATE
Entitled to compensation from wrongdoer
23/10/2009
It is noticed that people feel that they are entitled to at least claim damages for a tort committed by the government. If a wrongdoer
can be considered an act or omission of government, which is contrary to a legal duty or an unwritten law and if the government
violates a right.
We think including cases in which citizens come into contact with the judiciary, especially cases in which:
• Citizens as a suspect in a criminal offense, and after the criminal justice research or investigation at the hearing that the suspect is
innocent.
The questions include these citizens may arise are:
1. How is determined if there is a wrongdoer?
2. What damage is eligible for reimbursement?
3. How is the amount of compensation determined?
With the problem of wrongdoer in all its aspects to properly monitor and also to properly apply include a study of the Surinamese
and Dutch literature and case law to recommend. Dutch literature and case law should also be included, due to the fact that the
Surinamese right speakers have freedom, these sources of law to consider, before making a firm position. There will likely be
investigated or, if the application of the matter whether or not in accordance with the Dutch situation can occur, possibly met some
modifications.
A wrongdoer will often be determined by the court. Citizens will have to adjust a claim in court, where there is a recourse to Article
1386 of the Surinamese Civil Code (SCC). SBW 1386 article stating in particular that any wrongful act that would give any other
damage, the person through whose fault the damage occurred, the obligation to repair such damage.
Both material and immaterial damage eligible for compensation. Material damage suffered by direct money to express. For example
a vehicle destroyed or lost income. In other words pain and suffering material damage, the damage was not linked to the possession
or power, but such a person's reputation is damaged or harm someone in grief, loss of enjoyment of life, anxiety, physical
disfigurement and mental deficiency.
The size of both forms of compensation will ultimately be decided by the judge. In principle, the substantive compensation eligible
for full compensation. The determination of the intangible damages to several factors, such as the fairness and reasonableness of
the claimed amount, status and fortune of the damage caused and blame.
In Suriname there are sufficient legal experts, including lawyers, judicial officers and judges, that the problem of wrongdoer further
development can bring. Citizens must have confidence that if the government makes a mistake in carrying out its work and would
therefore damage, that damage is also compensated. The government itself is thus forced, at least not encouraged to stabbing to
drop in the performance of its work. Citizens have the right under Article 1386 SBW an appeal to court if they believe that they are
entitled to claim damages for a wrongdoer. The judge will determine if the claim is well founded and if compensation is actually
paid by the government should be and to what extent.
Moiwana Human Rights Organization Suriname.
Click here to read more »
Entitled to compensation from wrongdoer
23/10/2009
It is noticed that people feel that they are entitled to at least claim damages for a tort committed by the government. If a wrongdoer
can be considered an act or omission of government, which is contrary to a legal duty or an unwritten law and if the government
violates a right.
We think including cases in which citizens come into contact with the judiciary, especially cases in which:
• Citizens as a suspect in a criminal offense, and after the criminal justice research or investigation at the hearing that the suspect is
innocent.
The questions include these citizens may arise are:
1. How is determined if there is a wrongdoer?
2. What damage is eligible for reimbursement?
3. How is the amount of compensation determined?
With the problem of wrongdoer in all its aspects to properly monitor and also to properly apply include a study of the Surinamese
and Dutch literature and case law to recommend. Dutch literature and case law should also be included, due to the fact that the
Surinamese right speakers have freedom, these sources of law to consider, before making a firm position. There will likely be
investigated or, if the application of the matter whether or not in accordance with the Dutch situation can occur, possibly met some
modifications.
A wrongdoer will often be determined by the court. Citizens will have to adjust a claim in court, where there is a recourse to Article
1386 of the Surinamese Civil Code (SCC). SBW 1386 article stating in particular that any wrongful act that would give any other
damage, the person through whose fault the damage occurred, the obligation to repair such damage.
Both material and immaterial damage eligible for compensation. Material damage suffered by direct money to express. For example
a vehicle destroyed or lost income. In other words pain and suffering material damage, the damage was not linked to the possession
or power, but such a person's reputation is damaged or harm someone in grief, loss of enjoyment of life, anxiety, physical
disfigurement and mental deficiency.
The size of both forms of compensation will ultimately be decided by the judge. In principle, the substantive compensation eligible
for full compensation. The determination of the intangible damages to several factors, such as the fairness and reasonableness of
the claimed amount, status and fortune of the damage caused and blame.
In Suriname there are sufficient legal experts, including lawyers, judicial officers and judges, that the problem of wrongdoer further
development can bring. Citizens must have confidence that if the government makes a mistake in carrying out its work and would
therefore damage, that damage is also compensated. The government itself is thus forced, at least not encouraged to stabbing to
drop in the performance of its work. Citizens have the right under Article 1386 SBW an appeal to court if they believe that they are
entitled to claim damages for a wrongdoer. The judge will determine if the claim is well founded and if compensation is actually
paid by the government should be and to what extent.
Moiwana Human Rights Organization Suriname.
Click here to read more »
TRANSLATED FROM DUTCH BY GOOGLE TRANSLATE
"Bouterse actively killing Daal and Rambocus"
August 17, 2009
. Boxel - Ex-army leader Desi Bouterse was actively involved in the assassination of Cyrill Daal and Soerindre Rambocus on
December 8, 1982. As a battalion commander then said to Henry Paul Bhagwandas Behr, witnessed in December murder trial. Behr
whose brother on that day is brought to life, made this statement yesterday on the front and Krijgsraad.Daal Rambocus were
thirteen other men in the Fort Zeelandia shot by the then military rulers. The witness was in a 1996 interview with Bhagwandas. Of
the interview he says a voice in secret to have made a tape recorder that he had taped to his body. The band that Behr to then
chairman of the Organization for Justice and Peace (under usual) Ilse Labadie had given up, it now appears to have disappeared
without trace. Behr has no idea what it happened.
Henry Behr said yesterday before a court martial in 1996 to have a conversation with former battalion commander gahad Paul
Bhagwandas the December murders. Bhagwandas has told him that former military leader Desi Bouterse acitef was involved in the
murder and Cyrill Daal Soerindre Rambocus .-.
With union leader Fred Derby, the only survivor of the massacre of '82, in December 1995 Behr has an extensive conversation
about what he had experienced in Fort Zeelandia. ... In that interview where Johnny Kamperveen - now late - Siegfried and
screaming at present, according to Behr was revealed that no Derby mole or conspirator in the military. He was a victim as much
as fifteen men killed. After twice before a tribunal consisting of Bouterse and Roy Horb garrison commander to be brought, he was
dispatched. By Bouterse was a bottle of whiskey and some glasses were ripped to celebrate the Derby was left alive. Behr believes
that the union leader was left alive so that those in power grip could have on the unions.
The witness denied emphatically that his brother Bram Behr was involved in a coup attempt with the other victims. His attitude and
political beliefs are not consistent with those of some of these people. Although he initially welcomed coup of February 80, hit the
enthusiasm to as the military remained in power longer and democratic freedoms of the people in the increasingly difficult situation.
Behr let herself as a journalist increasingly critical about the regime and fell into disfavor. He was once even arrested and fourteen
days behind bars put .-. Source DWT
Click here to read more »
"Bouterse actively killing Daal and Rambocus"
August 17, 2009
. Boxel - Ex-army leader Desi Bouterse was actively involved in the assassination of Cyrill Daal and Soerindre Rambocus on
December 8, 1982. As a battalion commander then said to Henry Paul Bhagwandas Behr, witnessed in December murder trial. Behr
whose brother on that day is brought to life, made this statement yesterday on the front and Krijgsraad.Daal Rambocus were
thirteen other men in the Fort Zeelandia shot by the then military rulers. The witness was in a 1996 interview with Bhagwandas. Of
the interview he says a voice in secret to have made a tape recorder that he had taped to his body. The band that Behr to then
chairman of the Organization for Justice and Peace (under usual) Ilse Labadie had given up, it now appears to have disappeared
without trace. Behr has no idea what it happened.
Henry Behr said yesterday before a court martial in 1996 to have a conversation with former battalion commander gahad Paul
Bhagwandas the December murders. Bhagwandas has told him that former military leader Desi Bouterse acitef was involved in the
murder and Cyrill Daal Soerindre Rambocus .-.
With union leader Fred Derby, the only survivor of the massacre of '82, in December 1995 Behr has an extensive conversation
about what he had experienced in Fort Zeelandia. ... In that interview where Johnny Kamperveen - now late - Siegfried and
screaming at present, according to Behr was revealed that no Derby mole or conspirator in the military. He was a victim as much
as fifteen men killed. After twice before a tribunal consisting of Bouterse and Roy Horb garrison commander to be brought, he was
dispatched. By Bouterse was a bottle of whiskey and some glasses were ripped to celebrate the Derby was left alive. Behr believes
that the union leader was left alive so that those in power grip could have on the unions.
The witness denied emphatically that his brother Bram Behr was involved in a coup attempt with the other victims. His attitude and
political beliefs are not consistent with those of some of these people. Although he initially welcomed coup of February 80, hit the
enthusiasm to as the military remained in power longer and democratic freedoms of the people in the increasingly difficult situation.
Behr let herself as a journalist increasingly critical about the regime and fell into disfavor. He was once even arrested and fourteen
days behind bars put .-. Source DWT
Click here to read more »
The history of Suriname dates from 3000 BCE, when Native Americans first inhabited the area. Present-day
Suriname was the home to many distinct indigenous cultures. The largest tribes were the Arawaks, a nomadic coastal
tribe that lived from hunting and fishing, and the Caribs. The Arawaks (Kali'na) were the first inhabitants of Suriname;
later, the Caribs arrived, and conquered the Arawaks using their sailing ship. They settled in Galibi (Kupali Yumï,
meaning "tree of the forefathers") on the mouth of the Marowijne river. While the larger Arawak and Carib tribes
lived off the coast and savanna, smaller groups of indigenous peoples lived in the rainforest inland, such as the
Akurio, Trió, Wayarekule, Warrau, and Wayana. The first Europeans who came to Suriname were Dutch traders
who visited the area along with other parts of the South America's 'Wild Coast.' The first attempts to settle the area
by Europeans was in 1630, when English settlers led by Captain Marshall attempted to found a colony. They
cultivated crops of tobacco, but the venture failed. In 1651 a second attempt to establish an English colony was
made by Lord Willoughby, the governor of Barbados. The expedition was led by Anthony Rowse, who established
a colony and called it 'Willoughbyland.' It consisted of around 500 sugar plantations and a fort (Fort Willoughby).
Most of the work was done by the 2000 African slaves in the colony. There were around 1,000 whites there, soon
joined by other Europeans and Brazilian Jews. The settlement was invaded by the Dutch (from the Zeeland region),
led by Abraham Crijnssen, on 27 February 1667. Fort Willoughby was captured and renamed Fort Zeelandia. On
31 July 1667, the English and Dutch signed the Treaty of Breda, in which for the time being the status quo was
respected: the Dutch could keep occupying Suriname and the British the formerly Dutch colony New Amsterdam
(modern day New York). Willoughbyland was renamed Netherlands Guiana. This arrangement was made official in
the Treaty of Westminster of 1674, after the British had regained and again lost Suriname in 1667 and the Dutch
regained New Amsterdam in 1673. In the first half of the 18th century, agriculture flourished in Suriname. Most of
the work on the plantations was done by African slaves. The treatment of these slaves was bad, and many slaves
escaped to the jungle. These Maroons (also known as "Djukas" or "Bakabusi Nengre") often returned to attack the
plantations. Famous leaders of the Surinam Maroons were Alabi, Boni and Broos (Captain Broos). They formed a
sort of buffer zone between the Europeans who settled along the coast and main rivers, and the unconquered Native
American tribes of the inland regions. The Maroons have contributed significantly to the abolition of slavery. A
contemporary description of this situation in Suriname can be found in Narrative of a Five Years Expedition Against
the Revolted Negroes of Surinam by John Gabriel Stedman. Suriname was occupied by the British in 1799, after the
Netherlands were incorporated by France, and was returned to the Dutch in 1816, after the defeat of Napoleon.
The Dutch abolished slavery only in 1863—the last European nation to do so—although the British had already
abolished it during their short rule. The slaves were, however, not released until 1873; up to that date they conducted
obligatory but paid work at the plantations. In the meantime, many more workers had been imported from the
Netherlands East Indies, mostly Chinese inhabitants of that colony. After 1873, many Hindu laborers where
imported from India. This emigration was ended by Mohandas Gandhi in 1916. After that date, many laborers were
again imported from the Netherlands East Indies, especially Java. In the 20th century, the natural resources of
Suriname, rubber, gold and bauxite were exploited. The US company Alcoa had a claim on a large area in Suriname
where bauxite, from which aluminium can be made, was found. In 1954, Suriname gained self-government, with the
Netherlands retaining control of defence and foreign affairs. In 1973, the local government, led by the NPK (a
largely Creole party) started negotiations with the Dutch government about independence, which was granted at
November 25, 1975. The Dutch instituted an aid programme worth US$1.5 billion to last till 1985. The first
President of the country was Johan Ferrier, with Henck Arron (leader of the Surinam National Party) as Prime
Minister. Roughly a third of the population emigrated to the Netherlands, fearing that the new country would not be
able to survive. In 1980, the government of Henck Arron was overthrown in a military coup led by Sergeant-Major
Desi Bouterse. President Ferrier refused to recognise the new government, appointing Henk Chin A Sen (of the
Nationalist Republican Party). Another coup followed five months later, with the army replacing Ferrier with Chin A
Sen. The Dutch and Americans cut off their aid in protest at the move, leading to Bouterse looking towards countries
such as Grenada, Nicaragua, Cuba and Libya for help. In 1985, the ban on opposition parties was lifted, and work
began on devising a new constitution. The following year saw the start of an anti-government rebellion of the
Maroons in the interior, calling themselves the Jungle Commando and led by Ronnie Brunswijk. The Bouterse
government violently tried to suppress the insurgency by burning villages and other similar means. Many Maroons
fled to French Guiana. Elections were held in November 1987, with the 3-party anti-Bouterse coalition Front For
Democracy and Development winning 40 out 51 seats, and Dutch aid was resumed the following year. In August
1992 a peace treaty was signed with the Jungle Commando, bringing an end to the Maroon rebellion.
Meanwhile the economy was facing serious difficulties owing to a fall in world prices for aluminium and large scale
deficits. Widespread strikes occurred in 1999 over the government's handling of the economy, with strikers calling
for early elections. Meanwhile, in 2000, relations between Suriname and Guyana soured over disputes about the
country's maritime boundary. It is thought the area could be rich in oil. In August 2001, the Dutch provided a triple A
state guarantee to enable the Surinamese government to receive a 10-year loan from the Dutch Development Bank
(NTO) to the amount of Euro 137.7 million (U.S.$125 million). To further help the economy the Surinamese guilder
was replaced with the Surinamese dollar in 2004. In the May 2005 elections, Venetiaan won another term in office.
Sources: Wikipedia: History of Suriname
Suriname was the home to many distinct indigenous cultures. The largest tribes were the Arawaks, a nomadic coastal
tribe that lived from hunting and fishing, and the Caribs. The Arawaks (Kali'na) were the first inhabitants of Suriname;
later, the Caribs arrived, and conquered the Arawaks using their sailing ship. They settled in Galibi (Kupali Yumï,
meaning "tree of the forefathers") on the mouth of the Marowijne river. While the larger Arawak and Carib tribes
lived off the coast and savanna, smaller groups of indigenous peoples lived in the rainforest inland, such as the
Akurio, Trió, Wayarekule, Warrau, and Wayana. The first Europeans who came to Suriname were Dutch traders
who visited the area along with other parts of the South America's 'Wild Coast.' The first attempts to settle the area
by Europeans was in 1630, when English settlers led by Captain Marshall attempted to found a colony. They
cultivated crops of tobacco, but the venture failed. In 1651 a second attempt to establish an English colony was
made by Lord Willoughby, the governor of Barbados. The expedition was led by Anthony Rowse, who established
a colony and called it 'Willoughbyland.' It consisted of around 500 sugar plantations and a fort (Fort Willoughby).
Most of the work was done by the 2000 African slaves in the colony. There were around 1,000 whites there, soon
joined by other Europeans and Brazilian Jews. The settlement was invaded by the Dutch (from the Zeeland region),
led by Abraham Crijnssen, on 27 February 1667. Fort Willoughby was captured and renamed Fort Zeelandia. On
31 July 1667, the English and Dutch signed the Treaty of Breda, in which for the time being the status quo was
respected: the Dutch could keep occupying Suriname and the British the formerly Dutch colony New Amsterdam
(modern day New York). Willoughbyland was renamed Netherlands Guiana. This arrangement was made official in
the Treaty of Westminster of 1674, after the British had regained and again lost Suriname in 1667 and the Dutch
regained New Amsterdam in 1673. In the first half of the 18th century, agriculture flourished in Suriname. Most of
the work on the plantations was done by African slaves. The treatment of these slaves was bad, and many slaves
escaped to the jungle. These Maroons (also known as "Djukas" or "Bakabusi Nengre") often returned to attack the
plantations. Famous leaders of the Surinam Maroons were Alabi, Boni and Broos (Captain Broos). They formed a
sort of buffer zone between the Europeans who settled along the coast and main rivers, and the unconquered Native
American tribes of the inland regions. The Maroons have contributed significantly to the abolition of slavery. A
contemporary description of this situation in Suriname can be found in Narrative of a Five Years Expedition Against
the Revolted Negroes of Surinam by John Gabriel Stedman. Suriname was occupied by the British in 1799, after the
Netherlands were incorporated by France, and was returned to the Dutch in 1816, after the defeat of Napoleon.
The Dutch abolished slavery only in 1863—the last European nation to do so—although the British had already
abolished it during their short rule. The slaves were, however, not released until 1873; up to that date they conducted
obligatory but paid work at the plantations. In the meantime, many more workers had been imported from the
Netherlands East Indies, mostly Chinese inhabitants of that colony. After 1873, many Hindu laborers where
imported from India. This emigration was ended by Mohandas Gandhi in 1916. After that date, many laborers were
again imported from the Netherlands East Indies, especially Java. In the 20th century, the natural resources of
Suriname, rubber, gold and bauxite were exploited. The US company Alcoa had a claim on a large area in Suriname
where bauxite, from which aluminium can be made, was found. In 1954, Suriname gained self-government, with the
Netherlands retaining control of defence and foreign affairs. In 1973, the local government, led by the NPK (a
largely Creole party) started negotiations with the Dutch government about independence, which was granted at
November 25, 1975. The Dutch instituted an aid programme worth US$1.5 billion to last till 1985. The first
President of the country was Johan Ferrier, with Henck Arron (leader of the Surinam National Party) as Prime
Minister. Roughly a third of the population emigrated to the Netherlands, fearing that the new country would not be
able to survive. In 1980, the government of Henck Arron was overthrown in a military coup led by Sergeant-Major
Desi Bouterse. President Ferrier refused to recognise the new government, appointing Henk Chin A Sen (of the
Nationalist Republican Party). Another coup followed five months later, with the army replacing Ferrier with Chin A
Sen. The Dutch and Americans cut off their aid in protest at the move, leading to Bouterse looking towards countries
such as Grenada, Nicaragua, Cuba and Libya for help. In 1985, the ban on opposition parties was lifted, and work
began on devising a new constitution. The following year saw the start of an anti-government rebellion of the
Maroons in the interior, calling themselves the Jungle Commando and led by Ronnie Brunswijk. The Bouterse
government violently tried to suppress the insurgency by burning villages and other similar means. Many Maroons
fled to French Guiana. Elections were held in November 1987, with the 3-party anti-Bouterse coalition Front For
Democracy and Development winning 40 out 51 seats, and Dutch aid was resumed the following year. In August
1992 a peace treaty was signed with the Jungle Commando, bringing an end to the Maroon rebellion.
Meanwhile the economy was facing serious difficulties owing to a fall in world prices for aluminium and large scale
deficits. Widespread strikes occurred in 1999 over the government's handling of the economy, with strikers calling
for early elections. Meanwhile, in 2000, relations between Suriname and Guyana soured over disputes about the
country's maritime boundary. It is thought the area could be rich in oil. In August 2001, the Dutch provided a triple A
state guarantee to enable the Surinamese government to receive a 10-year loan from the Dutch Development Bank
(NTO) to the amount of Euro 137.7 million (U.S.$125 million). To further help the economy the Surinamese guilder
was replaced with the Surinamese dollar in 2004. In the May 2005 elections, Venetiaan won another term in office.
Sources: Wikipedia: History of Suriname
Click on map for larger view
Click on flag for Country Report
| INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS (IDPS) |
None reported.
