eohr@eohr.org
info@eohr.org
eohr@link.com.eg
|
EOHR's Commentary of Egypt's Third and Fourth Periodic Reports
to the Committee On Human Rights
In this report, EOHR concentrated on five basic areas which constitute the most common human rights violations. First is the imposed law of a state of emergency. Second is the deprivation of the right to a fair trial. Third is the violation of the right to freedom of expression. Fourth is the violation of the right to peacefully associate and form political parties. Lastly is the violation against women's rights.
First, the state of emergency's history:
The government has insisted on imposing the state of emergency for a continuous period of 20 years; each three years the resolution has been temporarily extended. Because of its longevity, the state of emergency is no longer considered the exception; rather, it is considered the norm.
On 27th February 2000, a temporary Presidential Decree No. 560/1981 was
issued to renew the state of emergency for three years from June 2000 till 31st May 2003. The People's Assembly approved this decree for the tenth consecutive time. This means that the emergency state has been enforced in Egypt continuously for a period of twenty one years. EOHR believes that the continuation of the emergency law is a threat to the human rights situation in Egypt because it is used as a tool in the hands of the executive power to deny basic rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Egyptian Constitution, law and the relevant international covenants on human rights.
The emergency law grants to the authority for the following abuses to occur:
" Executive power to impose restrictions on the freedoms of assembly, movement or residence; the power to arrest and detain suspects or those deemed dangerous, and the power to search individuals and places without the need to follow the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code according to Article 3 of the emergency law. Certainly, these powers constitute gross violations of the rights guaranteed by the Egyptian Constitution, which provides for personal freedom in Article 41; the inviolability of private homes in Article 44; freedom of movement and residence in Article 54. These powers also disregard many rights and safeguards stipulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( herein referred to as ICCPR ) which Egypt has ratified;
" The right to establish exceptional courts such as the state security courts and the supreme state security court of emergency to hear cases related to crimes committed in violation of rulings made by the President of the Republic or his deputy (according to Article 7/1 of the Emergency Law), and the right to include members of the military in the formation of the courts (Article 7/4). These rights are in gross violation of constitutional and international principles relevant to the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and the immunity of judges (Articles 165-173 of the Constitution and article 14 of the ICCPR ). Furthermore, Article 9 of the emergency law gives the President of the Republic the right to refer to the state security courts of emergency those accused in crimes that are punishable under common law. This is a clear violation of Article 40/9 of the Constitution, which states that all citizens are equal and are entitled to be tried by a competent judge and have the right to a fair and impartial trial as asserted by article 68 of the Constitution;
" Article 13 entitles the President of the Republic to close a case before it goes to court and to release temporarily those arrested before the case is heard by a state security court. Article 12 of the emergency law deprives those sentenced by state security courts of the right to challenge the rulings made against them, thereby violating the right of the defendant to appeal to a higher judicial area (Article 14 of the ICCPR). On the other hand, the same article states that the rulings of the state security courts can be considered final only after they have been ratified by the President of the Republic. These powers given to the President of the Republic constitute an unjustifiable interference in the role of the judiciary and are violations of the principle of the separation of powers. It also makes the execution of the rulings dependant on the will of the authorities in charge of the state of emergency, a situation that contradicts the spirit of justice;
" The President of the Republic has the right, once the state of emergency has been declared, to refer to the military judiciary any case related to a crime included in the Penal Code or any other law (Article 6 of the military rule law.) The referral of civilians to the military judiciary is a gross violation of the constitution, the ICCPR and all the recommendations made by local, regional and international conferences relevant to the independence of the judiciary, which stress the right of defendants to be brought before a civilian judge and prohibits all forms of exceptional trials.
By the end of 2000, the number of cases that had been referred to the military courts since November 1992 had reached a total of 34 cases including violence and terrorism cases and in which 1,012 defendants were involved. EOHR has observed that the ratio of death sentences issued in these cases was high; 92 of these sentences were issued, while the rest of the sentences ranged between imprisonment with hard labor, the imprisonment of 582 defendants, the criminal suit for one defendant being dropped, while 4 defendants suits were rejected, and 335 were acquitted.
The EOHR condemns the extension of the state of emergency, as well as all acts of violence and terrorism, regardless of the perpetrators or of their objectives. The organization believes that the rules of constitutional and judicial legitimacy are sufficient to confront terrorism, particularly if allied with the measures necessary to support political plurality and freedom of opinion and expression, and all other basic rights and freedom.
***********************************************************************
Second, the right to a fair and impartial trial: EOHR is still extremely worried about the continual referral of civilians to military courts which lack most of the constitutional and international safeguards, guarantees to a fair and impartial trial and the expanded use of the death penalty after quick and futile procedures that do not give the defendant enough time to prepare his defense.
The ongoing practice of referring civilians to military tribunals has raised EOHR's concern. We have expressed our steadfast position regarding trials which are heard before military courts, the National Security's Supreme Court, and the National Security's Emergency Court. The organization considers these trials to be flagrant violations against the defendant's rights to a just & impartial trial due to the fact that the defendants are denied the regulating guarantees as is stipulated in the constitution. Such trials also violate Article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil & Political Rights guaranteeing the right of every individual to a just and impartial trial based on the law. Furthermore, such trials are constant violations against the independence of the judiciary and rob public courts of their authority. In addition they rob each individual's guarantees of trial before ordinary civilian courts.
EOHR hopes to promote the cessation of the practice altogether. EOHR
insists that such military trials breach the independence of the judicial system and violate the right of the defendant to be tried before a civilian judicial system.
Here is a table that may be of some use:
|
E
O
H
R
|
|
