Madam Deputy Speaker, concerns have previously been raised about the lack of input that Parliament has in the agreements it is expected to ratify. This treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran that is before us today shows why.
Apart from the rather embarrassing fact that this treaty was signed in 2004 and is only coming to this House today for ratification, there are some fundamental concerns that we have regarding some of its provisions. The treaty provides that either country may refuse extradition if they have substantial grounds to believe that the probable sentence for the offence in the other country is qualitatively different from the probable sentence given on the same offence in the courts of their country. We would have preferred the treaty to say that South Africa shall refuse to extradite under such circumstances. There are other instances in the treaty where the word "shall" is used, for example, with reference to political offences. Why is there this distinction?
While we have been assured by the state legal advisers that we would not have to extradite people where the death penalty will be applicable - given the Constitutional Court ruling in the Mohamed case - it is a source of concern to us, that during the deliberation on this treaty in our committee, the representative addressing us on the issue advised that Iran had specifically requested that reference to the death penalty be removed from the treaty ... [Interjections.] I beg your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.
One has to wonder why. The treaty goes on to provide that either country may refuse extradition, unless the other gives a suitable undertaking or assurance that is considered sufficient by the other country that the person to be extradited will not be detained without trial, tortured in any way, or treated in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way. Our concern is, firstly, that there is no mechanism to monitor a person once they have been extradited. There is no provision for South Africa to send monitors there, for example, to ensure that they are complying with any undertaking given. There is also no definition of what constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It is a legitimate concern, given the human rights record of Iran, to think that they may have somewhat different ideas as to what constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment from what we do.
It is, in our view, irresponsible not to have specified clearly what we are referring to and in terms of what standards. It leaves the matter open to interpretation. Once an event has occurred that we regard as inappropriate, it may be too late.
We trust that our government will ensure that, if there are any extraditions to Iran, guarantees and agreements will be elicited regarding regular monitoring and the standards we expect to be adhered to.
We would have far preferred these standards to be included in the treaty for the sake of certainty and, because they have not, we cannot vote in favour of this treaty. [Applause.]