Jun 25, 2021 | News
The undersigned organizations express their deep concern about the continued disappearance of dentist and former parliamentarian, Mostafa Al-Naggar, on its 1000th day, and call on the Egyptian authorities to immediately disclose any information related to his whereabouts and to reveal his fate.
هذا البيان المشترك متوفر باللغة العربية أيضاً
The former parliamentarian, Mustafa Al-Naggar, a dentist and former head of the Justice Party, travelled to the southern Egyptian governorate of Aswan on September 27, 2018. Since then, his whereabouts and fate remain unknown. According to his wife, the last phone call between her and Mustafa Al-Naggar was on September 28, 2018, when he told her that he was in Aswan, and after that, the communication with him was cut off.
However, on October 10, 2018, his wife received a phone call from an unknown person on her home land line who told her that Al-Naggar had been arrested. Accordingly, on October 12, 2018, the family telegraphed the Public Prosecutor regarding his disappearance, and Mostafa Al-Naggar’s lawyers filed a complaint with the Aswan Prosecution on October 31, bearing the No. 1010 of 2018 Aswan petitions. The State Information Service issued a statement on October 18, 2018, denying that the security services had arrested Al-Naggar.
The Administrative Court of the State Council decided to accept a lawsuit filed by the family of Dr. Al-Naggar to reveal his whereabouts. According to the lawyer of the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, the Circle of Rights and Freedoms in the State Council ruled on January 20, 2020 to “stop the implementation of the negative decision and oblige the Minister of Interior to disclose the place of detention of dentist and former parliamentarian Mustafa Al-Naggar” in lawsuit No. 56032/73 J, which was filed by Shaima Ali Afifi, Dr. Al-Naggar’s wife.
The ruling council of the International Parliamentary Union had issued a decision in November 2020 regarding the disappearance of Mustafa Al-Naggar, in which it expressed its concern about the failure of the Egyptian authorities to take any measures towards revealing the fate of the former parliamentarian, and calling on the Ministry of Interior to open an investigation into his disappearance.
During its session held in May 2021, the same Council reiterated its continuing concern about the Egyptian authorities’ unwillingness to disclose Mustafa Al-Naggar’s whereabouts. The same Council renewed its call on the Ministry of Interior to take the investigation into his disappearance seriously, and to take the necessary measures to locate him.
It should be noted that Dr. Al-Naggar suffers from asthma and kidney stones, and depriving him of treatment may put his life at risk. We also note that Mustafa Al-Naggar has taken legal measures to appeal the ruling by the Cairo Criminal Court issued on December 30, 2017, against him and others in absentia, imposing a sentence of three years’ imprisonment following the “insulting the judiciary case” (in case No. 478 of 2014). On 15 October 2015 the court of cassation upheld the prison sentence.
The undersigned organizations call upon the Egyptian authorities to immediately disclose any information related to Mustafa Al-Naggar’s whereabouts and fate, as well as on the Public Prosecution – as the investigative body entrusted with following up and investigating citizens’ complaints – to immediately and urgently investigate the complaints submitted by his family, and on security forces to immediately stop the practice of enforced disappearance against Egyptian citizens, and those who oppose government policies, and immediately disclose the places of detention of the forcibly disappeared.
Signatory organizations
Stop Enforced Disappearance Campaign
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
Committee for Justice
Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms
Egyptian Front for Human Rights
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights
El-Nadim Center
Freedom Initiative
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
Intersection Association for Rights and Freedoms
Rafto Foundation
World Organisation against Torture (OMCT)
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications’ Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Jun 24, 2021 | News, Uncategorized
Egyptian authorities must immediately quash the convictions of Hanin Hossam and Mawadda Al-Adham and immediately and unconditionally release the two “TikTok girls,” the ICJ said today.
هذا البيان الصحفي متوفر باللغة العربية أيضاً
On 20 June 2021, the Cairo Criminal Court sentenced 20 year-old Hanin Hossam and 23 year-old Mawadda Al-Adham to 10 and six years in prison, respectively, and a fine of 200.000 Egyptian pounds each (12,778 US Dollars), after convicting them on “human trafficking” charges arising from their social media activities.
“Their convictions must be quashed and Hanin Hossam and Mawadda Al-Adham and others imprisoned must be immediately and unconditionally released,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Director.
“The role of the judiciary is to protect and uphold everyone’s right to freedom of expression, not to crack down on its legitimate exercise in the name of some purported and ill-defined moral or social values.”
The two women, known as the “TikTok girls”, were arrested in April 2020 for violating “public morals” and “undermining family values” after publishing videos, including some in which they were shown dancing or signing, on the social media platform TikTok. In July 2020, a Cairo Court convicted and sentenced Hossam and Al-Adham to two years in prison; their conviction was overturned on appeal in January 2021.
However, prosecutors moved swiftly soon after their successful appeal to charge them in another case with “human trafficking”, and “using girls in acts contrary to the principles and values of Egyptian society with the aim of gaining material benefits.” The sentences imposed on 20 June by the Cairo Criminal Court on Hossam and Al-Adham arise from their conviction on those charges.
The charges are based on the 2018 cyber-crimes law, which effectively criminalizes the lawful and legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression and association.
“Egypt’s military and government are turning Egypt into an open-air prison in which any and all forms of free expression are crushed,” added Benarbia.
On 12 March 2021, 31 UN Member States delivered a joint declaration at the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council denouncing the human rights situation in Egypt, including restrictions on freedom of expression.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications’ Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Jun 23, 2021 | Human Rights Council, News, Work with the UN
The Egyptian authorities systematically abuse “counter-terrorism” laws against human rights defenders, setting a dangerous model for other countries around the world to follow.
On 23 June, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) jointly organized an online event on the sidelines of 47th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council to denounce Egypt’s targeting of human rights defenders through the country’s “counter-terrorism” laws.
Titled ‘Weaponizing Counter Terrorism Laws to Silence Human Rights Defenders’, the interactive online webinar aimed to highlight how the Egyptian authorities use “counter-terrorism” laws to target human rights defenders, including by placing lawyers and human rights activists on Egypt’s “terrorist list”, a recent practice resulting in serious human rights violations.
The event was moderated by Bahey Eldin Hassan, CIHRS Director, who stressed that the abuse of the “counter-terrorism” laws was not only employed against human rights defenders, and is not a phenomenon limited to Egypt.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, pointed out that repressive regimes take advantage of the lack of a globally agreed definition of terrorism when legislating for counter terrorism purposes. As a result, they get to place whomever they like under the “terrorism label” at the national level, with no meaningful oversight or penalties.
“The United Nations Security Council has taken on a massive legislative role on counter terrorism, which has given cover to and enabled State repression at the national level,” Ní Aoláin noted addressing the role of the international community.
“This is not an accident or a ‘bad apple’ problem, the misuse of counter-terrorism is embedded in the practised national legal systems,” Ní Aoláin added. “That abuse is part of the DNA of State practice in many countries.”
“We are at a pivotal moment. States must ask themselves what 20 years of abuse of counter terrorism laws have done,” Ní Aoláin urged. “It has weakened protections and made us less safe in many ways. This is a time for States to stand up and ensure pressure for change of this situation.”
Brian Dooley, Senior Advisor to the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, noted that for authorities to imprison a human rights defender “with a straight face” for a long period of time, they have to use major accusations such as terrorism.
“The Egyptian authorities know that these human rights defenders are not terrorists,” Dooley said. “In most of the cases we have seen, where defenders were sentenced to ten years or more in prison, the relevant authorities use some sort of anti-terrorism, national security, or treason laws to justify putting a human rights defender away in prison for 10 or more years.”
Said Benarbia, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Director, began by naming some of the most prominent human rights defenders who remain in pre-trial detention facing “terrorism-related charges” in Egypt.
Among those Benarbia mentioned are: Alaa Abdelfattah, a blogger and a human rights activist; Mahienour al-Masri, a human rights lawyer; Mohammad al-Baqer, a lawyer and the director of the independent NGO, Adalah; and Amr Imam, a lawyer at the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information.
“In most of the cases the ICJ documented human rights defenders face charges of ‘joining a terrorist group’,” but the State security prosecution has consistently failed to even name the terrorist organization or group concerned,” Benarbia said. “In most of the cases, prosecutions were initiated with the sole purpose of intimidating and silencing human rights defenders.”
Benarbia emphasized that prosecuting individuals despite a total lack of evidence to support the charges is contrary to both the Egyptian and international law and standards.
“Any country that, like Egypt, uses ‘counter terrorism’ legislation to clamp down on basic freedoms and retaliate against human rights defenders and create open-air prisons should not have a say in setting international standards on terrorism,” Benarbia added.
Human Rights Defender, Celine Lebrun Shaath, delivered a passionate statement about her husband, Ramy Shaath, an Egyptian Palestinian human rights defender who has been detained since July 2019. Shaath, who herself was deported from Egypt in the wake of her husband’s arrest, mentioned that the online event was taking place on Ramy Shaath’s birthday; the second since his imprisonment. “I would rather not be here today,” she added, lamenting what had happened to her husband.
“We do not know to what terrorist group Ramy is supposed to be belonging,” Shaath said. “He is accused of spreading ‘fake news’, but we don’t know which news or where he had spread them.”
Shaath expressed her hope that the Egyptian government would heed the call for her husband’s release and free Ramy and all the political prisoners.
“[Human Rights Defenders] should be looked at as a wealth for this country. They are the future, they are not a threat, dissent is not terrorism, dissent is a vibrant part of democracy that should be cherished and protected,” Shaath underscored.
On 12 March 2021, 31 UN Member States signed a joint declaration condemning the human rights situation in Egypt, which Finland delivered on their behalf at the Human Rights Council’s 46th session. The joint letter focused primarily on “the restrictions on freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly, the constrained space for civil society and political opposition, and the application of terrorism legislation against peaceful critics.”
The event was cosponsored by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the International Service for Human Rights and the International Federation for Human Rights.
You can watch the entire event here.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Jun 22, 2021 | News
The Second Berlin Conference on Libya, taking place on 23 June, should focus on ensuring accountability for crimes under international law and guaranteeing that the transitional justice process is fully consistent with international law and standards as its key priorities, the ICJ said today.
هذا البيان الصحفي متوفر باللغة العربية أيضاً
“The Berlin II Conference must bring accountability to the top of the political agenda in Libya”, said Saïd Bernarbia, the ICJ MENA Director.
“The necessity to hold the 24 December elections cannot sideline the need for the Libyan authorities to hold perpetrators of crimes under international law to account and to end impunity for past and ongoing human rights abuses. Time and again experience from around the world has shown that accountability is crucial for a sustainable political solution.”
The 19 January 2020 Berlin Conference Conclusions stressed “the need to hold accountable all those who have violated provisions of international law”, and encouraged the Libyan authorities to strengthen “transitional justice institutions, including prosecution initiatives, reparations, truth-seeking and institutional reform.” A dedicated Working Group on human rights and international humanitarian law was created to implement such conclusions.
The Berlin II Conference must follow up on these commitments and give priority to ensuring that crimes under international law committed by all parties in Libya be effectively investigated with a view to holding perpetrators to account.
“The transitional justice process must be prioritized with a view to establishing the truth about past and ongoing gross human rights violations and abuses, upholding victims’ right to remedies and reparations, including by providing guarantees of non-repetition”, Benarbia said.
The Berlin II Conference should also support the work and mandate the UN Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Libya established by the Human Rights Council in June 2020.
Download this press release in PDF form here.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Jun 20, 2021 | News
On 19-20 June, the ICJ, in partnership with the Tunisian Association of Judges (AMT), organised a workshop on ‘Legal reasoning and judgment drafting in the cases before the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC)’ in Tunis, Tunisia.
Twenty-five SCC judges and prosecutors from across the country participated in the two-day workshop.
Said Benarbia, ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme Director; Anas Hmedi, AMT’s President; and Martine Comte and Philippe Texier, ICJ Commissioners, were the main speakers.
On the first day, speakers and participants focused on legal reasoning and interpretation challenges before the SCC.
ICJ Commissioner Philippe Texier spoke about the principles of legality and non-retroactivity, res judicata and the non-applicability of statutes of limitations, which are all recognised under Tunisian law.
Texier underlined that, when properly understood and applied, both the principle of non-retroactivity of the criminal law and the non-applicability of statutes of limitations would not necessarily be a bar to the prosecution of crimes and gross human rights violations within the jurisdiction of the SCC, since international law, including customary international law, already proscribed them at the time of their commission.
Said Benarbia stressed the importance of applying international law and standards, especially with regard to international crimes that Tunisian domestic penal law does not proscribe yet, such as the crime under international law of enforced disappearance. With respect to the hierarchy of norms, he underscored that the Tunisian Constitution clearly recognises that international law and treaties are superior to national law.
As a result, SCC judges are required to have regard to and apply relevant international law and treaties ratified by Tunisia in adjudicating the cases before them. Judges have the power and the responsibility to interpret Tunisian law in light of international law, including, whenever necessary, by filling certain gaps in domestic legislation.
ICJ Commissioner Martine Comte then spoke about the attribution of individual criminal responsibility and modes of liability, procedural guarantees and the rights of victims and the accused, as well as reparations and guarantees of non-repetition. She emphasised that, under the 2013 Tunisian law on Transitional Justice, guarantees of non-repetition are a constitutive and fundamental element of the transitional justice process.
Comte also explained that the doctrine of command responsibility is a well-recognised general principle of international law, established and applied in many jurisdictions, and therefore to be applied, as relevant, in cases before the SCC.
Comte underlined the importance of enforcing and monitoring the respect of procedural guarantees and the rights of both the victims and the accused, including the right to the presumption of innocence, the principle of equality of arms and the right to adversarial proceedings.
She added that the first reparation of all is the establishment of the truth and of the facts of each case, which, in turn, aims to restore the dignity of victims and their families by recognizing the harm they suffered.
Finally, Comte and the other speakers talked about conviction and sentencing and the challenges faced by SCC judges when the sentence is not defined in nor international law nor Tunisian law.
On the second day, expert speakers and participants discussed judgment drafting in cases before the SCC. They discussed how SCC judges, while addressing the challenges related to the complexity of the cases at hand, can ensure organized, clear, and effective judgment drafting, including through the establishment of a coherent judgment outline; and by providing a clear analysis of factual issues and how they should be resolved.
Texier stressed that the SCC are not exceptional in their nature: they are composed of ordinary judges and have to adhere to the standards of fair trial. SCC judgments differ from ordinary judgments in that they carry a historic significance, by establishing a negated truth and contributing to the duty of remembrance, both of which are crucial elements of the transitional justice process.
Said Benarbia spoke of one of the main challenges facing the work of the SCC, namely, the voluntary absence of the accused who do not appear before court despite being summoned. Drawing on examples from other transitional justice contexts, he concluded that in this respect Tunisia is an exception, as the transitional justice process is typically accompanied by a political will that ensures the presence of the accused.
Benarbia also stressed the importance of the presence of the accused before the Court as one of the fundamental guarantees of the right to a fair trial.
Comte underscored the need to comply with the law regarding the admissibility of evidence (e.g., ensuring that a confession has not been obtained by torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or by any other coercive means).
She then addressed the need for the judgment to provide a thorough analysis of the admissible evidence presented at trial on which the ultimate decision is rendered in light of the applicable law and stated that, under Tunisian law, the judges’ decision must be based on firm conviction, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Finally, Benarbia presented an outline for judges to rely upon when drafting the first SCC judgments, based on several judgments rendered by international tribunals. He underscored that such a structured and comprehensive outline would help judges in drafting coherent and exhaustive judgements.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa programme, email: said.benarbia@icj.org phone number: +41 79 878 35 46
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer at the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa programme, email: Asser.khattab(a)icj.org
