Egypt: Conviction of human rights defender Amal Fathy for social media criticism must not stand

Egypt: Conviction of human rights defender Amal Fathy for social media criticism must not stand

Today the ICJ called for appropriate measures to ensure justice in the case of Amal Fathy, an Egyptian human rights defender who was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment following her conviction for criticizing the Egyptian authorities’ inadequate response to rampant sexual harassment on social media.

On 30 December, Cairo’s Misdemeanor Court of Appeal will decide on Amal Fathy’s appeal against the conviction. The ICJ stresses that Fathy’s conviction and her prolonged arbitrary detention violate her rights to freedom of expression and to liberty protected under Egyptian and international law.

On 29 September 2018, the Maadi Misdemeanor Court convicted Fathy of “broadcasting false information harmful to national security;” “publishing online material that insults public decency;” and the public “use of foul language.” The charges were in reaction to her posting a video on Facebook criticizing the Egyptian authorities for failing to protect women against sexual harassment and for the poor quality of public services.

The Court sentenced Amal Fathy to two years’ imprisonment for the first two charges and fined her 10,000 Egyptian Pounds (US$558) for the latter, and set bail at 20,000 Egyptian Pounds (US$1115) pending her appeal.

Amal Fathy is said to be suffering from acute stress and depression as a result of her detention.

“Amal Fathy was charged and convicted for exercising her human right to freely express herself, which she exercised by calling on the Egyptian authorities to meet their obligation to protect the population from gender-based violence and commenting on the effectiveness of the services they provide. This is hardly a threat to national security or insult to public decency,” said Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme. “We hope the Court will recognize the charges are completely without legitimacy.”

Amal Fathy was detained from the time of her arrest on 11 May 2018 and following her conviction, despite posting bail. Her ongoing detention was based on charges issued by the Supreme State Security Prosecution on 12 May 2018 in a second case (Case No. 621/2018), including “membership in a terrorist organization,” “the use of the internet to promote ideas and beliefs calling for terrorist acts” and “spreading false news and rumors that damage public order and harm national interest.” There are at least six other defendants in the case, including two political activists, a journalist and a satirical comedy TV reporter. It is unclear whether she was charged under the Penal Code or Anti-Terrorism Law of 2015. On 18 December 2018, the South Cairo Court of Felonies ordered her conditional release and she is expected to be released on 22 December 2018.

“The Egyptian authorities have increasingly used pre-trial detention to harass human rights defenders or anyone who opposes the authorities and to chill them from further exercising their rights,” said Said Benarbia. “Case 621 is a concrete example, where trumped up charges are used as a tool to such ends.”

Amal Fathy’s arbitrary arrest and detention is no isolated case. In September, UN experts condemned Egypt’s systematic targeting and prolonged arbitrary detention of human rights defenders, expressing particular concern over Amal Fathy’s case. Local and international organizations, including the ICJ, have also documented and criticized the persecution of human rights defenders and political activists in Egypt through the use of the courts. The ICJ has documented how the Egyptian justice system is consistently used as a repressive tool to silence and eradicate political expression and human rights work.

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:

Amal Fathy was arrested at dawn on 11 May 2018, along with her husband Mohamed Lotfy, Director of the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, a human rights non-government organization. They were taken together with their three-year-old son to the Maadi Police Station. Lofty was released shortly after with their son and Fathy remained in detention until 18 December 2018. Fathy was charged under Articles 102bis, 178 and 306 of the Egyptian Penal Code (Case No. 7991/2018).

In the second case, which is still at the investigation stage, reports indicate the South Cairo Court of Felonies requires Amal Fathy to visit a police station for one hour each week and remain at her home unless she requires medical treatment as conditions of her release. Her next appearance is on 26 December 2018.

During the investigation of felonies related to national security, under Articles 143 and 206bis of the Egyptian Criminal Procedure Code, the Prosecutor can hold defendants in pretrial detention for up to five months (10 times 15-day renewals) before they must be referred to the competent criminal court for trial. Under Article 143, once the case is referred to the competent court, a defendant’s pre-trial detention can be extended each 45 days for up to 18 months, or “not exceeding two years if the penalty prescribed for the felony is life imprisonment or the death penalty.” Article 143 goes on to provide that “in cases of felonies punishable with the death penalty or life imprisonment, the Court of Cassation and the Court of Referral may order that the accused be held in custody for a renewable forty-five days, without the [above] time restriction.” This leaves the possibility for defendants to be detained indefinitely, which is open to abuse. In a mass trial of 739 defendants, all 320 arrested, including photo journalist Mahmoud Abu Zeid, remained in pre-trial detention for more than five years, before a verdict was handed down in September this year.

Article 9 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Egypt is a party, protects freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and imposes an obligation on States to ensure a number of protections, including the right to be brought promptly before a judge and the right to habeas corpus. Article 19 of the ICCPR protects the right to freedom of expression. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders similarly protects such rights exercised by human rights defenders and enjoins States to protect them from violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action for the lawful exercise of such rights.

 

Arabic language version of this statement in PDF format: NEWS-PR-EGYPT-AMALFATHY-AR-2018

 

On Video: At 70 Years, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remains “a common standard of achievement for all”

On Video: At 70 Years, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remains “a common standard of achievement for all”

Today, 10 December 2018 marks the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Developed as a universal standard setting out the rights to be enjoyed by everyone, the elaboration of the UDHR was one of the first actions undertaken by the newly established UN in carrying out its human rights mandate.

The UN Charter, forged after the ravages of the Second World War, places advancement of human rights as a core purpose and principle of the UN.

Over the past 70 years, the UN and regional human rights systems have taken the UDHR as the benchmark in developing the impressive normative architecture that constitutes the present day basis of international human rights law and standards.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) was founded in 1952, only four years after the UDHR, with a mission to advance the rule of law and legal protection of human rights. Most of the international legal human framework at that time had still not yet been developed. The founding members of the ICJ believed that the lofty human rights principles enunciated in the UDHR needed to be transformed into hard and enforceable legal obligations incumbent on all States. From its founding, the ICJ worked to develop treaties and other standards aimed to make the enjoyment of human rights real for people, and not merely aspirational.

According to Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ, “The ICJ’s biggest contribution to the international legal framework is still to bring together jurists from around the world to defend the rule of law and the universality of human rights at the global and local level.”

“Many now established global legal instruments have the fingerprints of the ICJ all over them. Crucial regional frameworks in the African, European, and American regions were developed with the deep and sustained involvement of the ICJ, as were the creation of the post of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Criminal Court,” said Sam Zarifi.

The UDHR has not only inspired the work of human rights defenders, but has also been foundational for the general acceptance of the notion of human rights around the world.

From 1948 until the end of the twentieth century, there has generally been a continuous upward trajectory towards the advancement of human rights, even if there have been many pitfalls along the way.

The notion that people have rights is now universally accepted and known by people. At the Vienna Conference on Human Rights in 1993, all States of the world not only reaffirmed their commitment to the UDHR, but also agreed that “the universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question.”

Over the years, there have certainly been major shortcomings in the push to achieve the realization of the human rights for all.

Some of the extreme examples include armed conflicts replete with crimes against humanity, war crimes and even genocide, followed by a failure to hold perpetrators accountable.

And there remains extreme poverty in parts of the world marked by a thorough neglect of economic and social rights.

Despite these shortfalls in implementation, it remains the case that human rights have been accepted as a key component in addressing humanity’s problems in the 70 years since the adoption of the UDHR.

“Over the years, more and more States have ratified human rights treaties, more States have incorporated human rights in their domestic law, and more courts have started to enforce human rights. At the grass roots law level, more organizations have demanded human rights as an entitlement and not just as an aspiration,” explains Ian Seiderman, Legal and Policy Director of the ICJ.

Despite, this long term trend in advancement of human rights, there are warning signs that progress is slowing and in some places has even reversed particularly in the past decade.

“We are now seeing a very strong pushback against human rights proclaimed in the UDHR from countries around the world,” says Ian Seiderman.

“Some of the pressures have come from the security angle, where even States that previously championed rights insist that rights protection must cede to security interest. More recently there has been a rise in populist authoritarian governments that don’t even pay lip service to human rights anymore. And many States have also turned their backs on the commitment to protect the most marginalized and vulnerable, such as refugees and migrants,” he adds.

Roberta Clarke, Chair of the ICJ Executive Committee:

At the normative level, there remains the notable gap in the international legal protection from transnational corporations and other business that abuse human rights and the reticence of many States to participate in good faith in the efforts at the UN to close this gap with a new business and human rights treaty.

This backlash has only redoubled the ICJ’s commitment to fight for the values originally imagined by the writers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The ICJ and its individual Commissioners remain heavily involved in the development of human rights standards and their implementation based on the UDHR and a part of the larger human rights movement.

The ICJ continues to work to adopt human rights law to changing conditions in the modern world, develops the human rights capacities of lawyers and judges in all parts of the world, undertakes legal advocacy internationally and in many countries, and provides legal tools for human rights practitioners.

Robert Goldman, ICJ President:

On the 70th anniversary of the UDHR, it is critically important to recall why the UDHR was established in the first place, especially in light of the current regression of human rights development around the world.

The preamble of the UDHR reminds us that “ disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.”

But more critically, it also insists that addressing these and other acts of inhuman rights require that human rights be protected by the rule of law.

This will be the ICJ’s continuing mission.

 

 

 

UN: Procedural safeguards and civil society’s action to prevent arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance

UN: Procedural safeguards and civil society’s action to prevent arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance

The ICJ prepared an oral statement on procedural safeguards and civil society’s action to prevent arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance, for the interactive dialogue with the UN Working Groups on Arbitrary Detention and on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances.

Although the statement could not ultimately be read out due to the limited time for civil society statements at the Human Rights Council, the text can found  here:

“Mr President, Chairpersons of the Working Groups,

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the focus of the report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on “Linkages between arbitrary detention and instances of torture and ill- treatment”.

The ICJ shares the view of the Working Group that “safeguards … to prevent” torture and ill-treatment minimize and prevent “instances of arbitrary detention” (A/HRC/39/45, para. 59, and the view that “Judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty ” (A/HRC/39/45, para. 60).

The ICJ further welcomes the interim report of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances on effective investigations (A/HRC/39/46), including the finding that “relatives of the disappeared have proven to be essential in the context of investigations and should have the right to know the truth … .” (para. 65)

The ICJ however stresses that these standards are not always upheld by States in their policies and actions.

For example, in Turkey, judicial review of detention is carried out by Judgeships of the Peace whose independence is highly questionable.

Finally, with regard to enforced disappearances, the ICJ is very concerned by the actions of Turkish authorities prohibiting the Saturday Mothers to hold their weekly protests in Galatasaray Square (Istanbul) in memory of their disappeared, in breach of their right to freedom of assembly.

Events of this kind seriously weaken the procedural safeguards and the action of civil society to protect and promote the prohibition of arbitrary detention and ensure accountability against enforced disappearances.

The ICJ urges the Council to address these worrying developments.

I thank you.”

HRC39-OralStatement-WGADWGEID-2018-draft-ENG (download the statement)

 

 

 

Translate »