|
|
|
II. Court Verdicts:
The year 2002 has witnessed many court verdicts concerning human rights. These verdicts came from different courts varying from the Administrative Court up to the Supreme Constitutional Court. Following are some of the most important verdicts issued in 2002:
1. Verdicts of the Supreme Constitutional Court:
The Supreme Constitutional Court issued five sentences during 2002.
Each verdict highlighted a number of important constitutional principles.
i. The dispute over the specialization of the legislative and judicial authorities:
The Supreme Constitutional Court issued, on 27 August 2002, an important principle concerning the dispute over the field of specialization of the Administrative Court and the Peoples Assembly (PA) in rendering a judgment concerning the membership in parliament.
It confirmed that, as far as there is a final verdict from the Administrative Court, there is no place for dispute to be presented to the Constitutional Court.
A Member of Parliament (MP) had requested the Supreme Constitutional Court to determine which authority has the right to decide about the legality of his membership.
The MP was suffering from an ongoing legal dispute concerning his membership between the PA and the Administrative Court.
The Court confirmed that there is no reason for appeal as far as one of the two authorities has issued its final verdict concerning the matter.
ii. The Constitutionality of the Child Law:
The Supreme Constitutional Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Child Law on 13 February 2002.
It pointed out, in its reasoning, many constitutional principles.
Following are the most important principles mentioned in the Court's reasoning:
- Fair trials and the right to litigate are strongly connected, as they are the basic principles in a just administration. The constitution gave everyone the right to a fair trial and the accused is innocent until proven guilty, which conforms with articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These principles should be the basis to work upon as part of a group of basic insurances consolidating a notion of justice compatible with contemporary standards agreed upon by democratic countries.
All of this is strongly connected with personal liberties, which the constitution has insured as a natural right that should not be restricted or violated.
- The Court confirmed that the Child Law number 12/1996 denies the criminal responsibility of the child who is less than 15 years old.
Only certain punishment can be sentenced on children aged 15 to 16.
The Law also banned the application of certain punishments to those between age of 16 and 18.
The Court pointed out that the law allowed concerned courts to reduce punishment.
It is also obligatory to appoint a solicitor to defend the under age. The law also aims to protect the child from straying.
iii. The Constitutionality of the Khulu' Law (Woman's divorce law):
The Supreme Constitutional Court ruled on 15 December 2002 its verdict about the constitutionality of Khulu' Law, concerning the inability of husbands to appeal against their wives divorcing them.
The Court mentioned in its reasoning that article 2 of the Constitution stipulates that Islamic regulations are the main source of the law. It ruled that it is not acceptable for a legal clause to contradict the confirmed Islamic regulations.
In its decree, the Court said that it is the right of a wife to divorce her husband and to ransom herself to obtain the divorce and this is clear in the Holy Qur'an.
The legislator adopted the 'Malky' Interpretation of Islam, which gives the wife the right to divorce her husband through court if she hates to continue living with him and in the case of the arbitrators failing to bring them together again.
An appeal against the place of the hearing in separate cases is not against the constitution but is within the frame of the authority evaluation which is again within the scope of regulating the rights, meaning that the rights for trials has been offered by the constitution for all the people.
iv .The unconstitutionality of the laws limiting the rights to litigate:
The Supreme Constitutional Court ruled, in two consecutive verdicts on 22 September and 15 December 2002, on the unconstitutionality of article 62.2 of the Law 76 of the year 1970 concerning the foundation of the press syndicate.
The Court also decreed that article 19 of Law 3 of the year 1987 concerning the sport professions syndicate is unconstitutional.
The court presented many principles in its reasoning.
The most important one concerns the powers of the legislative authority in regulating rights.
The court confirmed that the legislative authority's power is an estimative one as far as it is limited by the principles of the constitution.
In other words, the legislative authority's power is estimative as long as it is limited to being able to differentiation between rights and their violation.
The court confirmed that the right to litigate is one of the constitutional rights allowing the legislative authority to interfere, within its estimative powers, to regulate to rights in order to achieve their purpose, which is justice.
v. The unconstitutionality of Administrative Decisions taken without Judicial Supervision:
The Supreme Constitutional Court issued an important verdict on Sunday 22 September 2002 on article 4 of law 156 of the year 1960 concerning press regulations, which concludes that the committee decisions about estimating the compensation to the press owners are final and not liable for appeal through any way.
The Court consolidated the important principle ensuring that litigation is to protect rights guaranteed to all people, and thus every citizen has to appear in front of his normal judge.
The Court confirmed that in forming the committee concerned with estimating the compensation for press owners a consultant from the court of appeals should head the committee.
According to the Court decision, simply the presence of a legal body is insufficient to describe the committee as a judicial committee.
In this form, the committee is just an administrative committee and thus should be under judicial supervision.
2. Verdicts of the Administrative Court:
The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) monitored more than 70 verdicts issued by the Administrative Court and the National Council during 2002.
Following are some of the verdicts concerning Human Rights and Liberties:
1. The Alexandria Administrative Court laid down an important principle, which is:
governors are not to order the closure of Lawyers' Offices without permission from the General Attorney.
The Court said that the legislator put essential guarantees for lawyers including that interrogating lawyers or searching their offices should be implemented in the presence of a member of the General Prosecutor.
2. The Administrative Court confirmed that Civil Associations express public opinion and thus help Governments to defend their citizens' interests.
The Court called upon the Government to give NGOs larger space for fieldwork, increasing awareness, and developing behavior.
In this verdict, the court cancelled the Alexandria governor decree to dissolve one of the civil associations.
3. The Administrative Court cancelled the decision of the Minister of Social Affairs and Insurance to dissolve the 'Future Family' association.
In its reasoning, the court confirmed that the authority of the administrative body is to supervise associations on condition not to deny the right of the citizens to form and manage associations.
The Administrative Authorities should not be transformed into authoritarian bodies binding associations and thus limiting their freedom.
4. The Administrative Court in Alexandria confirmed the freedom to hold meetings as an essential constitutional right for citizens.
The court ordered the Ministry of Interior to pay LE 8000 as compensation to a citizen after being attacked by police officers while he was attending a general meeting.
5. The Administrative Court cancelled a decision of the Minister of Information to ban a newspaper in UAR from being distributed in Egypt.
The decision was based on the fact that a number of the Middle East Newspaper's issues have been published without being shown to the printing board.
The Court pointed out that claims by the administrative body of the paper publishing sensual titles were false as was clear from the documents of the case.
6. The Supreme Administrative Court re-confirmed the right of prisoners to receive visitors.
It refused appeals and justifications of the Ministry of Interior to close prisons to visitors.
It also refused appeals to stop unlimited visits of prisoners' relatives.
7. The Administrative Court ruled that lawyers are to visit prisoners and detainees alone and without a barrier separating them.
This verdict was issued following an appeal to cancel the decision of the Ministry of Interior to install wire barriers, interfering with direct communication between lawyers and prisoners.
8. The Administrative Court ruled against the Minister of Interior, the Chairman of the Prison Authority, and the Dean of Cairo University.
The court ruled for four political detainees to attend their university exams.
The Court said that legislation obliges the Prison Authority to encourage prisoners to pursue education, to facilitate their study and allow prisoners to attend their exams.
The Court added that the appealers are students in Cairo University and their detention and not allowing them to appear for their exam will affect them morally and materially which will be difficult to cover.
9. The Administrative Court confirmed that it is a crime to not implement the verdicts of courts.
Not implementing verdicts, is a criminal crime against the people who are the source of all authority and in its name, all the verdicts are issued.
10. The Administrative Court cancelled a decision to stop a citizen from traveling.
It said that the constitutional legislator confirmed the freedom of the people, including the right to traveling and movement.
Administrative bodies are given the authority to stop someone from traveling in the case that the citizen might be escaping a duty or legal proceedings, or in the case that the citizen is going to affect the reputation of the country.
The court, in this case, criticized the administrative body for preventing the appealer from traveling as it justified this decision on the fact that the appealer is an extremist.
11. Forced Disappearance and Verdicts of the Administrative Court: the Administration Court issued on Tuesday 26 November 2002 an historical verdict that fined the Ministry of Interior an amount of LE 100 thousand to be paid to the family of a detainee who was missing in prison since 1989 and the court considered him lost.
The court confirmed certain principles, the most important of which being that if a citizen is arrested or detained then he is under the control of the security authorities and thus, they are responsible for the detainees' life and dignity.
This responsibility continues until the detainee is released. Therefore, there are legal and constitutional obligations on the administrative body to protect the life and dignity of the detainee.
The court, thus, decided that the Ministry of Interior denied, with its own will and with what it possess of general authorities, all information for the plaintiff about her detained son.
This is considered forced disappearance, which is a blatant violation of human rights and of an essential freedom insured by the constitution and international covenants.
It is, also, a violation to the obligations to inform detainees' families about the whereabouts and status of the detainee.
3. Procedures:
In 2002, the General Prosecutor issued instructions to members of the prosecutor authority nationwide.
In this report, EOHR mentions two of these decrees, which are related to the organization's activities:
i. The lawyer is to be allowed to see the details of interrogation before meeting his client:
Mr. Maher Abdel Wahed, the General Prosecutor, confirmed that it is not allowed to separate the lawyer from the accused and it should allow the solicitor to see the interrogation report the day before seeing the client, unless the judge decides something else.
The General Prosecutor confirmed that the right for defense is guaranteed for every citizen as stated in the Constitution, which should always be fulfilled.
All efforts to abolish any obstacle against this right should be made.
The General Prosecutor requested that all lawyers be able to inspect documents up until the day before the interview with the detainee, so that the lawyer is aware of what is running in the interrogation and thus assisting the lawyer to carry on duties.
EOHR expressed gratitude for the issuing of this decision.
ii. The General Prosecutor is to be informed of any complaint against police officers:
EOHR welcomed the General Prosecutor's firm instructions reflecting the importance of informing the General Attorney by telephone about all the complaints produced against police officers.
This is to be followed by a summary and an accurate report about all the steps and the interrogation.
Members of the Prosecutor's office are to carry out the interrogation.
It is worth mentioning that complaints about torture presented to the Prosecutor are not dealt with until a decree is issued by the General Prosecutor.
Accordingly, EOHR sees that these new instructions may help in facing the crimes of torture in Egypt.
|
|
Copyright © 2002 EOHR. All rights reserved. 