Reports
Cairo: June 2003

Introduction           Section one            Section two           Section three     

Summary of the 2002 Annual Report

Section Two: Violations of Human Rights in 2002

1.      The Right to Life

In 2002, EOHR monitored 10 cases involving violations to the right to life in police stations and detention centers.  In each of these cases, EOHR strongly suspected that they died as a result of torture; in a number of them, this suspicion was actually confirmed by judicial rulings.  During the 1990s, EOHR affirmed in its annual reports that the confrontation between Egyptian security forces and armed Islamic groups was the main source of the violation of the right to life in Egypt; EOHR considered the proliferation of death sentences delivered by military courts as a gross violation of the right to life by the Egyptian authorities.  These violations reached their peak in the El-Dir El-Bahri massacre in Luxor in 1997.  After this incident, political violence between security forces and armed militant groups subsided.  However, violations of the right to life have not stopped as there continue to be deaths in police stations and detention centres.  In an overwhelming majority of these cases, the use of torture was implicated in the victims’ deaths.  EOHR is deeply concerned about this development, in particular because the legislative framework in Egypt appears to be incapable of preventing such practices.  In general terms, one could say that the number of cases declined for the above-mentioned reasons; however, it should be noted that this right is now violated due to only one atrocity – that is, torture.

 In addition, EOHR refers in its report to crimes of vengeance, as it considers this type of crime a common social phenomenon that constitutes a blatant violation of the right to life by non-governmental parties.  For the first time in the history of its annual reports, EOHR has included information on these violent crimes in the context of the violation of the right to life.  In 2002, 22 people were killed in the Beit Alam massacre in the governorate of Sohag in Upper Egypt.  EOHR believes that this type of crime is of a special nature because it is related to traditional cultural norms and is prevalent in communities where there is widespread poverty and illiteracy.   The state’s incapacity to disseminate awareness of this crime to its citizens has only contributed to its perpetuation.

 2.      The Right to Freedom and Personal Safety

In 2002, EOHR monitored the continued violation of the right to freedom and personal safety; these types of violations occurred not only in cases that involved political affiliation, but also in many that were completely outside of the political context – for instance, in the case of criminal detention.  In EOHR’s view, the primary reason behind these violations is the increasing dependency of security bodies on exceptional powers allocated to them by the Emergency Law.  These powers have become the primary investigatory mechanism for these bodies.  In addition to the violation of the right to freedom and personal safety, a plethora of other related rights and freedoms are routinely violated in this context.  For example, the right against arbitrary arrest, freedom from torture and ill treatment in detention centers, the prohibition against the detention of hostages, and in some cases, the violation of the right to life due to torture. 

 This section has been organized into three subcategories

1. Political Detention: Detention for political reasons continues to be a persistent phenomenon and is one of the primary violations of the right to freedom and personal safety.  Article 3 of the Emergency Law permits state security investigators to detain suspected persons and those that are deemed to be dangerous by state security.  EOHR confirms that the state security uses the powers conferred by this article without any regard for judicial rulings which order the release of detainees.  To ensure recurrent detention, the Ministry of Interior utilizes a technique that involves successive administrative orders.  After receiving a release order from the court, the Ministry of Interior transfers the detainee to a police station where he is held for a period of one to two weeks; afterwards, he is returned to the prison by a successive detention order.  In this manner, the Ministry of Interior can perpetuate the detention of an individual despite judicial rulings to the contrary.  EOHR is deeply regretful that the Ministry of Interior has not responded to any calls or appeals regarding the immediate release of detainees who have received release orders from the courts.  For example, EOHR included in this report, the names of 48 detainees who have received release orders but continue to be held in detention.

2. Criminal Detention: EOHR observed from its documentation and monitoring a large number of citizens who were routinely detained without any legal basis for extended periods without being presented before investigatory bodies.  Security authorities justified many of these detentions by stating that these individuals constituted a “danger to public security.”  The detainee must wait for 30 days after the issuance of his or her detention order before launching a challenge to a judicial body.  This is an unjustifiable violation of a citizen’s right to personal freedom.  In 2002, EOHR documented 20,017 criminal detention challenges, a sharp increase from previous years.  EOHR acquired this figure from challenges presented by the families of the detainees.  There might be more than one challenge from any given detainee; however, this staggering figure clearly attests to the seriousness of this situation.

3. Arbitrary Arrest and Ill Treatment in Detention Centres: During 2002, EOHR monitored an increasing number of arrest campaigns that involved citizens who did not have any political affiliation.  In many instances, the detention of these individuals was not founded on any credible legal basis.  Torture and other forms of ill treatment have become commonplace features of criminal investigation.  Confessions and information are obtained by putting pressure and coercion on detainees.  EOHR believes that this method does not only lead to the violation of the right to freedom and personal safety, but in many instances, also violates other rights such as the right to life, and the right to physical and psychological integrity.

EOHR warns that as the state security prosecution can extend the pre-trial detention of an individual for up to six months, pre-trial detention is now becoming a form of punishment without due process.  EOHR monitored a number of cases in which persons were detained for the full six month period without being presented to any judicial bodies.  EOHR believes that the use of pre-trial detention in this fashion – without legal reason – is a violation of the freedom of the person and personal safety.  It is being used as a tool to suppress individuals within the political opposition, in particular, those that are associated with the banned group, the Muslim Brotherhood.

3.      Involuntary Disappearance

This phenomenon emerged in Egypt during the 1990s, largely as a result of violent confrontations between security bodies and armed Islamic groups.  According to EOHR’s monitoring of this situation, there is a connection or relationship between involuntary disappearance and political violence: that is, there is a correlation between the geographical origins of disappeared individuals, and locations in which there have been violent exchanges between security forces and armed Islamic groups.  Despite a proliferation of involuntary disappearances – and despite complaints by EOHR and the victims’ families – the Egyptian government has taken no significant steps towards investigating this phenomenon.  Between 1992 and 2001, EOHR monitored and documented the disappearance of 58 persons: the fates of 17 were officially declared or known; however, the others continue to remain missing.  In 2002, EOHR became aware of three additional individuals who disappeared during the 1990s.  It contacted the relevant authorities to acquire further information regarding these individuals, but as this report went to print, EOHR had still not received a response.

4.      Treatment of Prisoners and Other Detainees

The information in this section was collected by EOHR in 2002 through visits to Egyptian prisons, interviews with detainees, and first-hand testimonies from families of victims.  EOHR observed the continuation of the systemic violation of prisoners’ rights.  Prisoners continue to be routinely deprived of the rights that are guaranteed by the Egyptian Constitution, international law, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.  These violations are as follows:

First: Torture and ill treatment: This section refers to the systematic forms of torture and ill treatment that occur in two contexts: as a means of discipline meted out when prisoners’ cells are being inspected; or while prisoners are being held in solitary confinement.

 Second: Poor health care: In this report, EOHR presents as examples 54 cases in which the withholding of proper medical care led to the endangerment of the lives of detainees.  Each of these cases involved political detainees that had received release orders that were not implemented. 

 Third: Preventing prisoners from education: This report presents as examples 48 cases in which individuals were prevented from obtaining or continuing their education.  Each of these cases involved political detainees that had received release orders that were not implemented.

 Fourth: Banning visits and communication from the outside world: An agreement reached between one Islamic group (Gamma Islammiya) and state authorities to halt violence within and outside prisons in exchange for better visitation policies led to some improvements in 2001 that positively affected the lives of prisoners and detainees.  However, this change did not include all detainees and prisoners, but only those that were affiliated with this particular group.  Accordingly, on October 26, 2002, the Ministry of Interior issued a decree (907/2002) banning all visits for a three month period to the Istiqbal wing of Tora Prison (for new prisoners), the maximum security wing of Tora Prison, the maximum security wing of Abu Zabl Prison, and Section 3 of Cell Block 1 at Abu Zabl. 

 5.      The Right to a Fair and Impartial Trial

This report includes the results of EOHR’s follow ups to cases involving violations to the right to a fair and impartial trial.  The violation of this right continues to be characterized by the referring of civilians to military courts, state security courts and emergency state security courts. 

First: Military courts

• The trial of those who are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood (Professor’s Organization): On July 30, 2002, a military court in Haykastep issued its verdict in case number 28 of 2002, commonly known as the “Professor’s Organization.”  The 22 defendants were all affiliated with the banned Muslim Brotherhood organization: 5 of them received five years in prison, 11 received three years, and 6 were acquitted.

• The trial of El-Waad organization: On September 9, 2002, the High Military Court in Haykastep delivered its verdict in case number 24 of 2001, commonly known as the “El-Waad Organization.”  This case included 94 defendants including 6 defendants that received their verdicts in absentia.  51 received prison sentences while 43 were acquitted: 3 defendants received fifteen years with hard labour; an additional 3 defendants received seven years with hard labour; 13 others received five years; 24 received three years; 2 received two years, and the remaining six were sentenced in absentia to three years with hard labour.  In addition, Said Abd El-Hamid Ahmed Attia, who was arrested in Sudan in July 2002 and deported to Egypt, was sentenced to seven years in Tora Prison in case 8 of 1998, commonly known as “Returnees from Albania.”

Second: Supreme State Security courts (Emergency)

• Osama Ahmed Farag, Felony #4638 of 1986 / judicial summary 36.  He was accused along with others for organizing a group that aimed at opposing the basic principles of the state ruling system, disseminating hatred and inciting others to resist public authorities, and using violence in order to achieve their aims.  On May 18, 2002 the court sentenced the defendant to prison for 10 years with hard labour.

• Ahmed Abd El-Hafez Osman: Between 1985 and the end of June, 1986 he and a number of others were alleged to have intentionally set fire to a number of establishments: Hosabear Theatre, Cinema Karim, along with a number of video stores (the defendant was sentenced to ten years with hard labour on the March 16, 2003.)

• 101 defendants from the Muslim Brotherhood in Alexandria: The defendants were arrested on June 27, 2002 during by-elections for the People’s Assembly in the constituency of Ramla.  Each of the defendants had supported the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Ms. Jihan El-Halafawy.  The misdemeanour court in Ramla (Emergency State Security) acquitted 35 of the defendants while imprisoning the remaining 66 for three months. 

• The case of the El-Matariya organization, case number 6050 of the year 2001, known as the “Qaraneen” or “Tanzim El-Matariya”: On March 5, 2002 the misdemeanour court in El-Matariya (Emergency State Security) sentenced the first and second defendants to three years imprisonment; the others received one year suspended sentences.

• The case of the alleged prophet (Saeed Tolba): The High State Security Prosecution referred 21 defendants to the court of misdemeanour at the Emergency State Security Court in Nasser City.  The defendants were charged with contaminating the Islamic religion, and disseminating extremist views in order to incite riot and contempt for Islam.  The court sentenced Saeed Tolba and six others to three years in prison; the other defendants received one year suspended sentences.

6.      The Right to Freedom of Expression and Opinion

EOHR observed an increasing number of cases involving non-governmental actors related to the misdemeanour of libel and slander.  EOHR monitored a number of instances in which journalists and other media personnel were assaulted during the electoral process.  In addition, the report includes the banning from circulation of two issues from two different magazines: El-Adab and Zawaya, both of which are published in Lebanon.  Finally, the report deals with the freedom of conscience.  There were a number of cases related to this freedom which were referred to the Emergency State Security Court and resulted in prison sentences (for example, the Qaraneen case).  In addition, the student Mohammed Ahmed Abdo Higazi – a student in the Institution of Social Service in Port Said – was detained and ill treated by state security in Port Said after publishing a collection of poems.  He was charged with the dissemination of propaganda with the intention of disrupting public security and peace, and insulting public servants.   

7.      The Right to Peaceful Assembly

In 2002, EOHR monitored cases in which the Egyptian security used excessive force to control and disperse demonstrations.  This was especially so in the case of student demonstrations which were organized to demonstrate support for the Palestinians.  Among the regrettable results were the shooting death of one student at Alexandria University and the arrest of dozens of others.  

8.      The Right to Political Participation

This section of the report outlines efforts by the Egyptian authorities to prevent opposition groups from attaining positions in the state decision making process.  This was evident on a number of occasions, most notably, as a result of government and security intervention in by-elections in the constituencies of Raml in Alexandria, El-Awy in Damnhour, and El-Mahmoudiya in Bahira.  The by-elections were necessary after the People’s Assembly was forced to exclude specific members in order to comply with a ruling by the Court of Cassation that declared the elections in these constituencies void.  In respects to these elections, EOHR observed the following violations:  

• Exploiting local bodies to increase support for governmental candidates

• Obstructing the judicial supervision of elections

• The police exceeded its responsibility for securing the electoral process by assaulting citizens and journalists

This report also refers to the establishment of the Committee for the Defence of Democracy in June, 2002, the product of a number of meetings between individuals from political parties, NGOs and other human rights organizations.  The committee determined a number of procedures that should be taken to bring about political and constitutional reform in Egypt, and its full mandate was released to the public in a joint press conference.  

9.      The Right to Form Political Parties, Syndicates and Associations

In 2002, there were no improvements in the performance of the Political Affairs Committee: it continued its policy of refusing all applications for the formation of new political parties.  On February 2, 2002, the committee rejected an application from Bilal Mahmoud Abu El-Magd to establish the Egyptian Popular Party.  On November 26, 2002, the committee rejected two other applications: an application by Atif Ahmed Abdullah to establish the Egyptian Peace Party, and an application by Sahar El-Said Mohammed to establish the Democratic Conference Party.   

In respects to professional syndicates, EOHR did not observe any improvements.  Most syndicates continued to remain stagnant as a result of judicial guardianship.

10.  The Right of Egyptians Working Abroad

In this section of the report EOHR presented a number of cases that arose from complaints by either Egyptians working abroad or their families.  Many of these individuals suffer from arbitrary dismissal or torture and ill treatment, and are often denied rights and financial dues.  In many of these cases, EOHR contacted the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and relevant embassies to inquire about these types of abuses.  It is an unfortunate fact that EOHR has received few replies.