27 December 2010

Egypt: Political activists appeal two-year sentencing following unfair trial

Several human and civil rights organisations have expressed their concerns regarding six Egyptian political activists who have appealed their sentencing following an unfair trial. Such a trial comes as a violation to both Egyptian law and the standards of international treaties signed by Egypt.


Political activists: Hassan Mohammad Qasim, Mohammed Adelmoawad, Mohamed Abdelmoneim Hussein, Yasser Farag Ali, Mahmoud Assaid Agami Ali and Khaled Mohamed Mahmoud Barai were all sentenced to two years imprisonment in case No. 14734 of 2010. They were all charged with "electoral campaigning based on religious beliefs", as well as other charges, "including belonging to a banned group created to prevent legal and state institutions from properly operating", as well as "attacking personal public freedoms" and "possessing publications and leaflets that incite hatred against the regime".

Alkarama's Legal Director, Rachid Mesli said that, "the right to a fair trial is one of the most fundamental human rights - one based on specific criteria to ensure that a fair trial protects the right of the individual from the moment of his or her arrest - all the way up until they are brought to court and given the right to appeal and veto."

He maintained that Alkarama is "deeply disturbed that the accused have had their rights and defense denied due to the political dimension of their case, not to mention the intense antagonism of the Egyptian regime towards internal opposition groups during the recent legislative elections."

Case background

On 19 November 2010 the six men were arrested and referred to the Court of Misdemeanors on 25 November 2010 where they were sentenced to two years imprisonment. They appealed the sentencing on 14 December 2010 and now the trial has been adjourned until 28 December 2010.
Several human rights organisations (who have co-signed this statement), deem the sentencing of the six men to be unjust. First of all, the men were arrested in the context of an election campaign riddled with forcible incursions by Egyptian security services against opposition groups and secondly because they were arbitrarily detained prior to their trial.

The confirmation that the trial was indeed unfair is only strengthened by the fact that it took place under exceptional circumstances - the Al-Gharbaniat prison administration denied the defendants access to their lawyers, despite the fact that the lawyers had been given permission by the Prosecutor General to visit their clients.

In fact, the Al-Gharbaniat prison administration confiscated one of their defense lawyer's visitation card, and also lifted some of his personal documents while forcibly detaining him in one of the prison administration offices for six hours before his release.

Organisations call for justice

The signatories of this statement call upon the competent court to provide the necessary guarantees of a fair trial and to ensure that the decision of the court is not politically-motivated. The trial should therefore respect the stipulations of a fair trial as defined by the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
According to the signatories of this statement, there is no justification for the unjust punishment against these citizens, who were simply exercising their views in a peaceful manner. The defendants have not committed any "crime", but have rather exercised their rights as enshrined in international treaties to which Egypt is a signatory.

The following organisations signed this statement on 26 December 2010:
- Alkarama, Geneva
- The Shehab Center for Human Rights
- The Nadim Center for Rahabilitation of Victims of Violence
- The Egyptian Law Association and Human Rights

Egypt - HR Instruments

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

ICCPR: Ratified on 14.01.1982
Optional Protocol: No

State report: Overdue since 01.11.2004 (4th)
Last concluding observations: 28.11.2002

Convention against Torture (CAT)

CAT: Accessed on 25.06.1986
Optional Protocol: No
Art. 20 (Confidential inquiry): Yes
Art. 22 (Individual communications): No

State report: Due on 25.06.2016 (initially due in 2004)
Last concluding observations: 23.12.2002

International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED)

No

Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

Last review: 02.2010 (1st cycle)
Next review: 2014 (2nd cycle)

National Human Rights Institution (NHRI)

National Council for Human Rights (NCHR) – Status A

Last review: 10.2006
Next review: Deferred