report- The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights

On November 6, 2001, twenty two( 22) of professors in Egyptian universities along with some members of the Muslim Brotherhood were arrested. They were investigated by the state security prosecution with the charge of affiliating with a group established in contrary with the rulings of the law along with other charges that will be mentioned in details.

On November 26, 2001 the case was referred to the military court, the trial began on November 27, 2001. The case was performed in 18 session which were divided as follows”

On July 30, 2002 the military court at Al Haiketsib issued its verdict in case no. 29/2001 known by” Tanzeem Al Asatza”, the case in which 22 person were accused. The sentences were as follows:

Here in details are the charges addressed by the military prosecution, the defense done by the defense system, the powers of the court and the comments of EOHR.

- Promotions of activities, which were consistent with the group’s fundamental philosophy by holding secret meetings to discuss future plans. Such meetings were also used to provide an environment in which the 22 defendants could persuade others of the merits of belonging to such an organization.

- Establishment of a computer company of which portions of income received as a result of its inception were then used to finance the organization expenditures. Members also used computer as a means of contacting one another. Also contacts were various charities and students to illicit support in shaping public opinion such that if and when they attempted an eventual coup over the state and political authorities, such a change would be tolerated, if not welcomed.

- Production of pamphlets and other publication as a means of propaganda, all of which were dispersed as a means of gaining for the group credibility within the community.

With virtue of the rulings of the Supreme Constitutional Court, the corner stone of any crime is the proof. So the crime itself is not valid as

- The law, constitution and international instruments grant the freedom of opinion, expression and belief.

The confiscated books ought to be revised by the Academy, Al Azhar or any competent body. If was proved that it contained any material punishable by the law, the defendant should be tried according to the law then.

The president referred the case to military court due to decree no. 1 of 1981. Then decree no. 400 was issued with virtue of paragraph 1 of article no. 6 of the military law.

Article 6 permitted the referral of civilians to military courts in crimes that are punishable in the general law (punishments-procedures). This means the implementation of the procedural code along with the penal code. As a result the verdicts issued in such cases are not approved, the other procedures; court procedures or appeals, are followed up before the ordinary courts.

The courts established by the virtue of the emergency law and exceptional laws, these courts were cancelled and rearranged in a way to grant that the defendant has the right to appeal. The constitution reforms the state security courts in accordance with law no. 105/1980. This law stipulates that any verdict that does not conform to the rulings of the supreme state security court shall be abolished. The same was affirmed by the Supreme State Security Court, which stated that “all judicial bodies shall respect any legal term issued by the legislator for certain purpose”.

Article no. 9 stipulated that” any case should be automatically referred to the state security court, if it is the competent one, which was established by virtue of law no. 105 of 1980”

The verdicts of the Supreme State Security Court are final, as they can not be appealed.

Article 10 stipulated that “ the president or his deputy shall have the right to approve the verdicts issued by the State Security Court before the issuance of law no. 105 of 1980.

The aforementioned indicates that the referring verdict is not valid as it was in conflict with the rulings of constitution and law.

The prosecution warrants to arrest the defendants and inspect their houses were invalid as the investigations based on information received by a secret resource. The criminal law contained no clause like ”secret resource”. In the case such secret resource exists, he should be a witness in the case. The prosecution warrant itself is invalid as it was issued after the defendants were already arrested.

Noteworthy is that most of the defendants were arrested after the midnight and till the dawn of the day after. The SSI maltreated them and threatened them. Though there were no apparent injuries in the defendants, they were psychologically hurt and physically assaulted in a way left no injuries.

At the time EOHR affirms its condemnation for any form of violence or terrorism, it is deeply disturbed because of the continuos practice of referring civilians to military courts. EOHR demands the following:

1- To cease the practice of referring civilians to military courts, it urges the president to use his constitutional powers to cease the implementation of the verdicts issued in the case of “ Tanzeem Al Asatza” and to order their retrial before ordinary courts.

2- To end the emergency status which has been in force since 1981; it empower the security forces to violate the fundamental rights of citizens. EOHR calls upon the abolishment of the state security courts as they are exceptional courts established only for emergency status, it do not conform with the constitutional and international standards concerned with the independence of the judiciary system.

4- To amend military law no. 25/1966 to be implemented on military men, who are charged with military crimes, and on the crimes committed inside military units and camps.

5- To cease the practices of torturing and maltreating citizens in the premises of the SSI and other detention places. In this regard EOHR demands:

A- Amendment of article no. 63 of the penal code to grant the right of the defendants to file cases against policemen who perpetrate torture crimes against such defendants.

B- Issuance of the two declarations indicated in articles (21, 22) of The International Convention Against Torture. Due to these articles, the Committee against Torture, at the UN, could regard the complaint addressed by individuals or countries against the Egyptian authority breach of its commitments stipulated in the convention.

6- To call the Egyptian civil society, with all its associations, institutions, political parties and national institutions concerned with human rights, to urge the Egyptian authorities to put an end for the torture phenomenon.

The name	The job	The verdict
Mohammed Sayed Abdallah Ghazlan	Professor in Agriculture faculty, Alzagazig University	5 years
Abed Men’m Ali Abdu Albarbari	Professor in doctor’s faculty	5 years
Hussein Ali Hussein Aldarg	Doctor	3 years
Osama Ahmed Ahmed Abou Shadi	Engineer	5 years
Taher Abdel Men’m Sayed Hassan	owner and director of a computer company	5 years
Maged Hssan Hassan Al Zomor	Accountant and owner of an accountancy office	5 years
Salah Aldeen Mohammed Ahmed Hassan	Retired	3 years
MA’moun Mohammed Ibrahim Ashour	Professor in doctors faculty. Ain Shams university	3 years
Mohei Aldein Mohammed Mahmoud Alzayet	Doctor	3 years
Sharaf Aldein Mahmoud Sharaf Aldein	Assistant professor in science faculty, Cairo university	3 years
Hamdi Mostafa Khalil Shaheen	Assistant professor in science faculty, Cairo university	Acquittal
Mohammed Aziz Hamam Abdel Mageed	Professor in Al Tabaion institute for metal studies	3 years
Ahmed Addel Alhaleem Wahba Sa’fan	Analysis doctor and owns a surgery	3 years
Ahmed Al’bd Mahmoud Abou Alsa’ed	Professor in the education faculty, Al Azhar university	Acquittal
Mohammed Mahmoud Mansour Alsayed Mansour	Ophthalmologist and owns a clinic	Acquittal
Khaled Hanafi Faheem Hussein Othman	A doctor and owns a clinic	Acquittal
Mohammed Ahmed Kamal Abdel Kader Al’akhal	Agricultural engineer	3 years
Mohammed Mohammed Mohammed Imam	Contractor	3 years
Mohammed Hisham Ahmed Isa	Professor in the optics institute in Al Giza	3 years
Mohammed Ali IbrahimAlkasa	Public relations officer in Sana company for media	Acquittal
Sayed Ahmed Sheba Ali	Professor at science faculty, Ain Shams University	3 years
Ahemed Ali Gom’aa Alsayed	Engineer	acquittal

The Muslim Brotherhood is being subjected to many consecutive attacks by the authorities lately. More than 20 hundred were arrested and accused of affiliation with the banned Muslim Brotherhood. As follows are some of the cases in which some people were accused of affiliating themselves with the Muslim Brotherhood:

EOHR report on case no. 29/2001

September 15, 2002