Egypt: Authorities must release arbitrarily detained individuals

Egypt: Authorities must release arbitrarily detained individuals

The Egyptian authorities must drop the charges against nine detainees arrested on 1 November 2018 and immediately and unconditionally release them and at least 31 others arrested and in some cases “disappeared” since late October 2018, or otherwise charge them with a recognizable crime consistent with international law, the ICJ said today.

Those arrested in the present sweeps include human rights defenders (HRDs), lawyers, and political activists and persons otherwise providing support to political detainees. Reports indicate that at least some of those detained are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. The ICJ is concerned that many if not all of these detainees are being held solely for political reasons.

On Wednesday 21 November, nine detainees held since 1 November 2018—Hoda Abdel Moneim, Mohamed Abu Hurayra, Bahaa Auda, Aisha Al Shater, Ahmed El Hodeiby, Mohamed El Hodeiby, Somaya Nassef, Marwa Madbouly and Ibrahim Atta—were interrogated by the State Security Prosecution, who ordered they be held in pre-trial detention for 15 days.

According to information available to the ICJ, the prosecution charged the nine with joining and funding a terrorist organization and incitement to harm the national economy under Egypt’s Counter-Terrorism Law No. 94/2015 (Case No. 1552/ 2018).

Lawyers representing the detainees were not permitted to access the case files, nor were they allowed to speak with the defendants in private. One of the detainees interrogated on 21 November was also interrogated on 19 November 2018 without the presence of a lawyer. It is unclear when the State Security Prosecution ordered their pre-trial detention.

At least three other detainees also appear to have been interrogated on 24 November 2018, including Ahmed Saad, Ahmed Ma’touk and Sahar Hathout. No information is known about whether an order for their pre-trial detention has been issued.

“These arbitrary arrests and trumped up charges are yet another example of the relentless assault by the military and government on the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and association and to take part in political activity,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ’s MENA Programme Director. “Targeting anyone having any connection to opposition groups under the government’s ‘war on terrorism’ erodes the rule of law in Egypt, undermines human rights, and means there’s now very little, if any, room to carry out human rights work.”

According to public reports, at least 31 others were arrested by Egyptian authorities in raids in late October or early November 2018. Despite repeated calls on the authorities to provide information regarding their location, their whereabouts remain unknown, raising serious concerns for their health and safety. After human rights lawyer Hoda Abdel Moneim—one of the nine now charged—was held incommunicado for 21 days, her family issued a statement expressing concern about her “dire [physical and psychological] health condition.”

It is well established that the Egyptian authorities engage in the widespread and systematic use of torture. Although Egypt’s Constitution, Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code require that detainees be held in official places of detention with judicial oversight and prohibit torture and other mistreatment, these safeguards have proven ineffective in practice.

The United Nations Committee Against Torture previously reported on the torture of hundreds of people disappeared by the Egyptian authorities. The ICJ is concerned about the high probability that these detainees have been tortured.

“The authorities should unconditionally and immediately release those arrested solely for exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms, bring any others immediately before a judge to review whether there is any lawful basis for their detention and for any charges brought, and ensure that all those deprived of their liberty are protected against torture and other ill-treatment,” said Said Benarbia.

Contact:

Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org

Background

Among those arrested in late October and early November 2018 were human rights lawyer and former spokesperson of the ECRF, Mohammed Abu Hureira, and his wife, Aisha al-Shater, daughter of imprisoned deputy chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood, Khairat al-Shater, as well as human rights lawyer Hoda Abdelmoniem, a former member of the National Council for Human Rights, who was arrested at her home after it was raided without warrant. At least eight of the 40 arrested are women. Reports from local human rights lawyers and organizations suggest that the number of persons arrested and arbitrarily detained could be higher.

The arrests are part of Egypt’s orchestrated crackdown on human rights work, in which human rights defenders and critics are arbitrarily arrested and detained, subjected to enforced disappearance, prosecuted in unfair trials, and sometimes sentenced to death. Two other members of the ECRF, including its Executive Director, were arrested in March 2018 and forcibly disappeared in September after an Egyptian Court ordered their release. Following the latest arrests, the ECRF—which documents enforced disappearances and Egypt’s increasing application of the death penalty—suspended its operations in protest.

On 10 September 2018, the Cairo Criminal Court convicted 739 defendants for their participation in the Raba’a Al Adaweyya square protests in August 2013 after a grossly unfair trial, sentencing 75 defendants to death and 658 defendants to life or five to 15 years’ imprisonment.

On 24 April 2018, following an unfair trial, the Cairo military court convicted former judge and former head of the Central Auditing Authority, Hisham Geneina, to five years in prison for “publishing false information harmful to the national security.”

The arrests place Egypt in breach of its international legal obligations, including under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 9 of the ICCPR protects freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and imposes an obligation on States to ensure a number of protections in respect of detention.

These include the requirement that detainees be brought promptly before a judge so their detention can be reviewed; have the right independently to challenge the lawfulness of their detention; and have the right to access legal counsel. Article 14 of the ICCPR also requires states to ensure detainees have access to legal counsel. Judicial oversight of detention is particularly necessary to protect detainees from torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.

Articles 19, 22 and 25 of the ICCPR also protect the rights to freedom of expression, to freedom of association and to participate in public affairs. Articles 5-8 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders similarly protects such rights exercised by HRDs and Article 12 requires states to protect HRDs from violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action for the lawful exercise of such rights.

Under Egyptian Law, Article 56 of the Constitution and Articles 41-42 of the Criminal Procedure Code require that detainees be held in official places of detention and subject to judicial supervision, including judicial power to inspect places of detention and review each detainee’s case. Articles 51-52 and 55 of the Constitution, Article 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 126 of the Penal Code prohibit torture and other mistreatment.

In June 2018, the ICJ expressed its concerns about Egypt’s repeated renewals of the State of Emergency since April 2017, and the use of the state of emergency to suppress the activities of and persecute students, human rights defenders, political activists, union members and those suspected of opposing the government.

Egypt-November Arrests-News-Web Story-2018-ARA (PDF in Arabic)

Egypt: verdict in case of police who tortured and killed detainee reinforces limited justice for crimes by state officials

Egypt: verdict in case of police who tortured and killed detainee reinforces limited justice for crimes by state officials

The South Cairo Criminal Court’s conviction and sentencing on 11 November 2018 of Assistant Detective Mohamed Sayed Abdel Halim and Police Officer Mohamed Ahmed Salem to three years and six months’ imprisonment respectively for conduct involving the torture and killing of 22-year-old Mohamed Abdel-Hakim Mahmoud does not amount to justice for the crimes against him, the ICJ said today.

The ICJ called on prosecutors to consider options for appeal or new charges that could hold the perpetrators properly to account for serious crimes, with sanctions appropriate to the gravity of their conduct and in line with international law.

The two officers apparently unlawfully arrested Mohamed Abdel-Hakim Mahmoud, otherwise known as “Afroto,” on 5 January 2018 and subjected him to severe beatings and other torture, as a result of which he died.

The Court convicted Abdel Halim of “beating that led to death,” a crime that carries a sentence of three to seven years’ imprisonment under Article 236 of the Egyptian Penal Code, and Salem of “light beating.”

“The low sentences imposed by the Court are completely disproportionate to the conduct of the perpetrators, who beat Afroto, threw him into a cell and then beat him again when he complained he was unable to breath. The perpetrators should have been held accountable for their true criminal conduct, which included torture and murder in police custody,” said Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser of the ICJ MENA Programme.

“The Egyptian authorities’ consistent efforts to immunize public officials from real accountability denies the victims and their families their right to redress and reinforces the Egyptian people’s increasing lack of trust in the Egyptian government and judicial system,” she added.

The definition of torture under Article 126 of the Egyptian Penal Code only establishes liability for torture for the purpose of obtaining a “confession” against a suspect, falling far short of the standard required by the Egyptian Constitution and the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which contemplate torture being undertaken for any number of purposes. The Penal Code also imposes penalties—hard labour and the death penalty—inconsistent with human rights, including for torture and murder.

“Egypt should amend the Penal Code to prohibit all forms of torture and abolish the death penalty and hard labour,” said Kate Vigneswaran.

“The authorities are obligated under international law to ensure effective justice for crimes committed by public officials by charging them with crimes and imposing sentences reflecting their criminal conduct. Legislative reform is needed to both ensure accountability for victims and uphold the rights of perpetrators,” she added.

Contact:

Kate Vigneswaran, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, m: +31 624894664, e: kate.vigneswaran@icj.org

Egypt-Afroto Verdict-News-2018-ENG (full story with additional information, in PDF)

Libya: ICJ engages judges and prosecutors on fair trial guarantees and lawyers on international justice procedures

Libya: ICJ engages judges and prosecutors on fair trial guarantees and lawyers on international justice procedures

On 28‒31 October 2018, the ICJ hosted two seminars for 30 judges and prosecutors and 26 lawyers from Libya.

The events were co-organized with the Libyan Network for Legal Aid and commenced with opening remarks by ICJ Commissioner, Justice Kalthoum Kennou of Tunisia.

The first seminar on 28‒29 October on “Fair Trial Guarantees in Libya in light of International Standards” aimed to deepen the understanding of Libyan judges and prosecutors of the application of international law and standards regarding fair trials.

The seminar covered pre-trial rights, such as the right to liberty, to effective legal counsel and to be brought promptly before a judge, and rights at trial, such as the right to defend oneself in person, to call and examine witnesses and to an appeal.

International fair trial standards were considered in light of Libyan domestic law and cases, including case 630/2012 involving 37 Ghaddafi-era officials.

The second seminar on 30‒31 October on “The Law and Procedure to File a Submission before the International Criminal Court” aimed to increase Libyan lawyers’ understanding of how to properly file a successful submission to the Office of the Prosecutor.

The Seminar covered the structure and functioning of the ICC, the jurisdictional and admissibility requirements, and the standards for collection and admissibility of evidence.

The Seminar further discussed the roles of NGOs, lawyers and victims in ICC proceedings, providing practical guidance on how and when to file a communication under Article 15 of the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Speakers included judges and prosecutors from international courts and tribunals as well as ICJ staff.

 

 

 

Information on Khashoggi case from Turkish President Erdogan highlights need for international investigation

Information on Khashoggi case from Turkish President Erdogan highlights need for international investigation

In light of new information released by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan about the apparent murder of prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the Turkish government should seek cooperation from independent and impartial international investigators into the apparent extrajudicial killing of prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Istanbul, the ICJ urged today.

Turkish President Recep Tayyib Erdogan today told the Turkish Parliament that investigations suggested that Saudi officials had planned to kill Khashoggi and he called for all those responsible for the killing to be punished regardless of rank.

“Given the highly political nature of this case and its emblematic impact for journalists and dissidents around the world, Turkey should work with the United Nations to establish a special independent mechanism to carry out the investigation with a view to identifying the perpetrators and prescribing recommendations for appropriate accountability measures,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.

“Alternatively, the investigation should be conducted by competent Turkish authorities, given that Turkey already has jurisdiction and an obligation to carry out an investigation,” he added.

Investigations by Turkey to date suggest that the crime was planned, at least in part, in Saudi Arabia, and that perpetrators, evidence and witnesses are located in at least two countries.

Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, stated today that Turkey is ready to cooperate with an international investigation into Jamal Khashoggi’s death.

“Given the gravity of the crime and the fact that evidence and perpetrators are located outside Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other States should cooperate with an international investigation and waive any diplomatic protections and immunities that may apply to State officials and premises. They should also hand over all forensic, video, audio and other evidence, facilitate investigators’ access to State territory and witnesses, including State officials, and provide the necessary support to locate, retrieve and identify other evidence such as human remains and trace evidence and to carry out an autopsy on Khashoggi’s remains,” Benarbia said.

The ICJ dismissed statements by Saudi Arabia that it would carry out an independent, impartial investigation of the apparent murder.

On 20 October 2018, after initially denying any involvement in Jamal Khashoggi’s enforced disappearance, the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement claiming Khashoggi died when a “fight broke out” in discussions with Saudi officials at the consulate.

“Saudi Arabia has provided no evidence to support its incredible claim two weeks on that Jamal Khashoggi died after a fight broke out. Their investigation into his death lacks transparency and independence. Given Saudi Arabia’s past record in countenancing complete impunity for officials involved in serious human rights violations, it is reasonable to expect that this investigation and will result in a cover-up in which those most responsible avoid accountability,” Benarbia added.

Saudi Arabia’s repeated denials that it had any knowledge of the fate of Khashoggi, followed by its claims that “rogue” State operatives were responsible for his death, indicate that any Turkish investigation will be unlikely to elicit any meaningful cooperation from Saudi authorities.

“The denials, obfuscation and scapegoating by Saudi Arabia reveals a contempt for human rights that’s indicative of its modus operandi,” Benarbia said.

“Saudi authorities have repeatedly failed to carry out independent and impartial investigations into allegations that State officials have engaged in widespread arbitrary arrested and detention, torture and other ill-treatment and enforced disappearances, including of journalists, human rights defenders and critics of the government. Since Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman was appointed in June 2017, repression of the exercise of human rights for political reasons has increased. Those convicted for exercising their lawful rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association face lengthy prison terms or the death penalty, after trials marred by fair trial rights violations,” he added.

Saudi Arabia-Khashoggi intl investigation-News-press releases-2018-ENG (full story with additional background, in PDF)

Successes and Failures of the 39th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

Successes and Failures of the 39th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

The ICJ joined other civil society organisations in addressing the UN Human Rights Council, on the successes and failures of its 39th session, concluding today.

The statement, read by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), was as follows:

“This session, the Council adopted landmark resolutions on several country situations, further enhancing its contribution to the protection of human rights.

On Myanmar, we welcome the creation of the independent investigative mechanism, which is an important step towards accountability for the horrific crimes committed in Myanmar, as elaborated in the FFM’s report to this session. The overwhelming support for the resolution, notwithstanding China’s shameful blocking of consensus, was a clear message to victims and survivors that the international community stands with them in their fight for justice.

On Yemen, the Council demonstrated that principled action is possible, and has sent a strong message to victims of human rights violations in Yemen that accountability is a priority for the international community, by voting in favour of renewing the mandate of the Group of Eminent Experts to continue international investigations into violations committed by all parties to the conflict.

Furthermore, we welcome the leadership by a group of States on the landmark resolution on Venezuela, and consider it as an important step for the Council applying objective criteria to address country situations that warrant its attention. The resolution, adopted with support from all UN regions, sends a strong message of support to the Venezuelan people. By opening up a space for dialogue at the Council, the resolution brings scrutiny to the tragic human rights and humanitarian crisis unfolding in the country.

While we welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) on Burundi,  to continue its critical investigation and work towards accountability, however we regret that the Council failed to respond more strongly to Burundi’s record of non-cooperation and attacks against the UN human rights system.

We also welcome the Council’s adoption of the resolution on Syria, which among other things condemns all violations and abuses of international human rights law and all violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties to the conflict.

However, on other country situations including China, Sudan, Cambodia and the Philippines, the Council failed to take appropriate action.

On Sudan, we are deeply concerned about the weak resolution that envisions an end to the Independent Expert’s mandate once an OHCHR office is set up; a “deal” Sudan has already indicated it does not feel bound by, and which is an abdication of the Council’s responsibility to human rights victims in Sudan while grave violations are ongoing. At a minimum, States should ensure the planned country office monitors and publicly reports on the human rights situation  across Sudan, and that the High Commissioner is mandated to report to the Council on the Office’s findings.

We also regret the lack of concerted Council action on the Philippines, in spite of the need to establish independent international and national investigations into extrajudicial killings in the government’s ‘war on drugs’, and to monitor and respond to the government’s moves toward authoritarianism.

In addition, we regret the Council’s weak response to the deepening  human rights and the rule of law crisis in Cambodia, failing to change its approach even when faced with clear findings by the Special Rapporteur demonstrating that the exclusive focus on technical assistance and capacity building in the country is failing.

We share the concerns that many raised during the session, including the High Commissioner, about China’s own human rights record, specifically noting serious violations of the rights of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities in Xinjiang province. It is regrettable that States did not make a concrete and collective call for action by China to cease the internment of  estimates ranging up to 1 million individuals from these communities.

On thematic resolutions, we welcome the adoption of the resolution on equal participation in political and public affairs but would have preferred a stronger endorsement and implementation of the Guidelines.

The resolution on safety of journalists, adopted by consensus, sets out a clear roadmap of practical actions to end impunity for attacks. Journalism is not a crime – yet too many States in this room simply imprison those that criticize them. This must end, starting with the implementation of this resolution.

We welcome the adoption by consensus of the resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights in humanitarian settings. Women and girls affected by conflict have been denied accountability for too long. The implementation of this resolution will ensure that their rights, including their sexual and reproductive health and rights, are respected, protected and fulfilled.

Finally, the Council’s first interactive dialogue on reprisals was an important step to ensure accountability for this shameful practice, and we urge more States to have the courage and conviction to stand up for defenders and call out countries that attack and intimidate them.”

Signatories:

  1. The African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS)
  2. Amnesty International
  3. Article 19
  4. Center for Reproductive Rights
  5. CIVICUS
  6. DefendDefenders
  7. FIDH
  8. Forum Asia
  9. Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF)
  10. Human Rights Watch
  11. International Commission of Jurists
  12. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)

 

Translate »