|
RAPPORTEUR
31st Session: Commissioner El Hassan
32nd Session: Commissioner El Hassan
33rd Session: Commissioner El Hassan
SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. The complaint is filed by the Arab Organisation for Human Rights (AOHR),
Egypt on behalf of Professor Saadeddin Mohammed Ibrahim (male, 61), Nadia
Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Nour (female, 49), Khaled Ahmed Mohammed Al-Fayyad
(male, 29), Usama Hashem Hammad �Ali (male, 28), Mohammed Hassanein
Hassanein �Amara (male, 49), Magda Ibrahim Ibrahim Al-Bey (female, 41), and
Marwa Ibrahim Zaki Ahmed Al Sayyid Gouda (female).
2. This complaint follows the trial and conviction by the Supreme Security
Court of the Respondent State in May 2001 of professor Saadeddin Ibrahim,
Director and Chair of the Board of Directors of the Ibn Khaldun Center for
Development Studies, who was also treassurer of Hay�at Da�am al-Nakhibat
(Association for the Support of Women Voters, known in Egypt as �Hoda
Association�), together with twenty-seven other persons, including the six
other individuals mentioned above. They were all working either as permanent
employees or project associates of the two organisations and ten of them
were tried in absentia.
3. The Complainant alleges that the accused were charged with deliberately
disseminating information abroad about the internal situation in the
Respondent State damaging its stature contrary to Article 80(d) of the Penal
Code, conspiring to bribe public officials to undermine the performance of
their duties contrary to Articles 40(2), 40(3), and 48 of the Penal Code,
receiving donations from the European Union (EU) without prior permission
from the competent authorities contrary to Articles 1(6) and 2(1) of
Military Order No. 4 of 1992, using deceptive methods to defraud the EU of
funds made available to the two organisations contrary to Article 336 (1) of
the Penal Code, and accepting and offering bribes and of forgery of official
documents contrary to Articles 103, 104, 107bis, 207, 211, and 214 of the
Penal Code. They were convicted and sentenced to several terms of
imprisonment ranging from seven years with hard labour to one year suspended
terms.
4. In the process of apprehending, trying and convicting the accused, the
Complainant alleges that the Respondent State violated their pre-trial and
trial rights, freedom of expression, rights to appeal, and rights to
effective domestic remedies. Regarding pre-trial violations, the Complainant
alleges that Professor Ibrahim, Usama Hamad Ali, and Nadia Abdel Nour were
first arrested by offficers of the Mabahith Amn al-Dawla al-�Ulya (State
Security Intellgence) on 30th June 2000. Professor Ibrahim and Nadia Abdel
Nour were held in administrative detention without access to judicial
supervision or other remedies until 10th August 2000 when they were released
on bail. During this period, no formal charges were brought against them.
Usama Hamad �Ali was initially released on 1st July 2000 but was later
re-arrested and similarly held in administrative detention until granted
bail in August 2000. No charges were brought against all the accused until
24th September 2000. They were held in sub-human condition and interrogated
for unduly long hours. Having been arrested without warrants, Nadia Abdel
Nour and Usama Hammad �Ali were neither informed of the reasons for their
arrest nor were they afforded access to their lawyers during interrogation.
The former was allowed access to her lawyer only after over three weeks
since she first requested for it.
5. Regarding violations during the trial, the Complainant alleges that the
accused were denied adequate time and facilities for the conduct of their
defence, their defence councils were denied access to the prosecution�s
evidence. Although the trial began on 18th November 2000, the defence
lawyers were granted access to examine the prosecution�s evidence on 19th
March 2001, by which time they had called most of their witnesses. They were
permitted to examine these documents only for three hours and were not
allowed to make any copies thereof. In addition, defence lawyers were
required to conduct the examination in the presence and under the
supervision of staff of the Supreme State Security Prosecution.
6. In May 2001, the prosecution concluded its closing statement to be
followed by the introduction of hundreds of pages of additional written
evidence by the defence, which the court accepted. On the same day, however,
and after adjourning at about 14:00 hours local time for one and half hours,
the judges of the Supreme Security Court returned guilty verdicts and
announced the sentence. The considered judgement of the Court was out only
on 19 June 2001, nearly one month after the conclusion of the trial, thereby
denying the accused of their right to appeal against the decision promptly.
7. The Complainant, moreover, alleges that these trials sought to punish the
accused for opinions lawfully held and disseminated by them, that there were
no domestic remedies for the pre-trial and trial rights violations as Law
No. 105 of 1980 setting up the Supreme State Security Courts denies the
accused of full rights of appeal, that they could only appeal on procedural
points to the Court of Cassation and not on substantive issues, that the
Court of Cassation can not acquit the accused in such an appeal, that the
said Court of Cassation can only order a re-trial which would effectively
subject the accused to second jeopardy, and that an acquittal in an appeal
by Cassation can only be ordered should a second appeal against a re-trial
is successful.
COMPLAINT
8. The Complainant alleges violation of Articles 5, 6, 7(1)(a-d) and 9(2) of
the African Charter on Human and peoples Rights.
9. The Complainant prays for the African Commission to request the
Respondent State to:
- Take steps to vacate the conviction of the accused and take all other
steps necessary to ensure adequate redress to the latter due to the
violations of Articles 7 and 9(2) of the Charter; and
- Adequately compensate the accused for violation of their rights under
Articles 5 and 6 of the Charter;
PROCEDURE
10. The Complaint was dated 24th December 2001 and received at the
Secretariat on 26th December 2001 by fax and on 2nd January 2002 by mail.
11. After registering the complaint, the Secretariat learnt that the matter
was pending before the Court of Cassation of the Respondent State. On 24th
January 2002, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant acknowledging receipt
of the complaint and requesting the latter further clarification on the
status of the appeal before the said Court.
12. At its 31st Ordinary Session held from 2nd to 16th May 2002 in Pretoria,
South Africa, the African Commission considered the complaint and decided to
be seized thereof.
13. On 28th May 2002, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant and the
Respondent State of this decision and requested them to forward their
submissions on admissibility before the 32nd Ordinary Session of the African
Commission.
14. At its 32nd Ordinary Session held from 17th to 23rd October 2002 in
Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission examined the complaint and
decided to defer its consideration on admissibility to the 33rd Ordinary
Session.
15. On 7th November 2002, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainants and
Respondent State to inform them of this decision.
16. The two parties forwarded their submissions on admissibility to the
Secretariat each party was given copies of submissions from the other party.
17. On 9th April 2003, the Complainant wrote to the Secretariat informing it
that the Court of Cassation in Egypt had acquitted Professor Saadeddin
Ibrahim. The Complainant also requested the withdrawal of its Communication
concerning Dr Saadeddin Ibrahim.
18. By fax dated 17th April 2003, the Complainant confirmed that its request
for withdrawal was made on behalf of all the alleged victims in the
Communication.
For the abovementioned reason, the African Commission, takes note of the
withdrawal of the communication by the Complainant and decides to close the
file.
Done at the 33rd Ordinary Session held in Niamey, Niger, from 15th to 29th
May 2003. |
|