Det Udenrigspolitiske Nævn 2006-07
Bilag 51
Offentligt
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page i
Egypt – Systematic abuses in the nameof security
1. IntroductionBackgroundEgypt’s counter-terrorism laws
146
2. Arbitrary arrests and unlawful detentionMass arbitrary arrestsIncommunicado and secret detentionAdministrative detention
10101214
3. Torture and other ill-treatmentEgyptian law and torture
1720
4. Unfair trialsLack of equality before the lawPublic Prosecution’s special powersLack of access to lawyersLack of investigations into torture allegationsUse of torture evidenceMilitary and emergency courtsDeath penalty
2222232424262731
5. Unlawful transfers to torture: five casesAbdul Rahman Muhammad Nasir Qasim al-Yaf’iMamdouh HabibAhmed Agiza and Muhammed El-ZariAhmad Abu al-MaatiAbu Omar
323233343536
6. Recommendationspublished by:Amnesty InternationalInternational SecretariatPeter Benenson House1 Easton St reetLondon WC1X 0DWUnited Kingdomwww.amnesty.org
404447
AppendixEndnotes
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page ii
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 1
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
1
1. Introduction
shocking video showing Egyptian police raping a male prisoner was posted on the Internetby an Egyptian blogger in November 2006. The victim was Emad MohamedAli Mohamed, known as Emad al-Kabir, a 21-year-old taxi driver. He had been arrested theprevious January after trying to stop an argument between police officers and his cousin.He was accused of “resisting the authorities” and presented before the Public Prosecutor, whoordered his release on bail. However, police took him back to Bulaq Dakrur Police Station in Gizagovernorate and the next day – 20 January 2006 – they tortured him.Emad al-Kabir said officers tied his hands and feet and forced him to sit on the floor. Theywhipped him and ordered him to call himself degrading names. They then removed his trousersand raped him with a stick, recording the torture on a mobile phone. An officer told him thevideo would be circulated in Emad al-Kabir’s neighbourhood (which it was) in order to publiclyhumiliate him and intimidate others.Emad al-Kabir was subsequently sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for “resisting theauthorities” and “assaulting a police officer”. After the video came to light, two officers from BulaqDakrur Police Station were charged with the unlawful detention, torture and rape of Emad al-Kabir; their trial began on 3 March 2007.What happened to Emad al-Kabir was by no means an isolated incident. Torture and otherill-treatment are systematic in detention centres across Egypt, including in police stations,premises run by the State Security Investigations (SSI) services, and military camps.1Thisshould come as no surprise – the systematic nature of torture in Egypt has been highlightedby Amnesty International, the UN Committee against Torture and others for many years.2What was unusual about Emad al-Kabir’s case was that the authorities took action against thealleged torturers.
A
Amnesty International April 2006
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 2
2
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
Torture and other ill-treatment, arbitrary arrests and detention, and grossly unfair trials beforeemergency and military courts have all been key features of Egypt’s 40-year state of emergencyand counter-terrorism campaign. The extensive powers granted to law enforcement officials,especially SSI officers, have played a key role in facilitating such abuses, particularly torture.Emergency legislation has also severely restricted the rights to freedom of expression, associationand assembly.In the wake of attacks by armed groups, security police have carried out mass arrestswithout recourse to due process. Relatives of suspects have been rounded up too, and thenthreatened and abused. A combination of incommunicado and secret detention has meantthat to all intents and purposes, some of those arrested have become victims of enforceddisappearance for weeks or months. Some have died as a result of torture. Commonly citedmethods have included electric shocks, beatings, suspension in painful positions, solitaryconfinement, rape and threats of death, sexual abuse and attacks on relatives.Around 18,000 administrative detainees – people held without charge or trial under ordersissued by the Interior Ministry – are languishing in Egypt’s jails in degrading and inhumaneconditions.3Some have been held for more than a decade, including many whose release hasbeen repeatedly ordered by courts.A parallel system of emergency justice, involving specially constituted “emergency courts”and the trial of civilians before military courts, has been established for cases deemed by theauthorities to affect national security. Under this system, safeguards for fair trial, such as equalitybefore the law, prompt access to lawyers and the ban on using evidence extracted under torture,have been routinely violated. The result has been grossly unfair trials, including in cases wheredefendants have been sentenced to death and, in some cases, executed.Despite Egypt’s long and well-publicized record of such serious human rights violations,governments in other countries, notably the USA, have chosen to send detainees there in thecontext of the global “war on terror”. These transfers have been carried out unlawfully, withoutany due process and in clear breach of the principle of non-refoulement – the absoluteprohibition of sending anyone to a country where they would be at risk of serious human rightsabuses such as torture and other ill-treatment, or enforced disappearance. The resultant abuses,as testified by detainees cited in this report as well as many others, have been all too predictable.This report is based on research conducted in Egypt and elsewhere, interviews with victimsof human rights violations and their relatives, and communications with government officials. Itis published at a time of increased repression of the opposition and free speech in Egypt, andwhen the authorities are considering new anti-terrorism legislation that threatens to entrenchpatterns of abuse witnessed in the past 40 years.In March 2007 members of parliament were asked to approve amendments to 34 articles ofthe Constitution proposed by President Mubarak in December 2006 and thereby to write intopermanent law emergency-style powers that had led to serious human rights violations fordecades. The vote was held on 19 March in the absence of opposition MPs, who had staged awalk-out to protest against the amendments and the government’s moves to rush throughconstitutional reforms. The amendments were approved.Amended Article 179 is particularly draconian and paves the way for a proposed new anti-terrorism law. It states that measures taken to combat terrorism will not be constrained by the
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 3
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
3
protections in Articles 41(1), 44 and 45(2) of the Constitution, which provide legal safeguardsagainst arbitrary arrest and detention, police searches without a warrant, and eavesdroppingon telephone calls and other private communications. It also allows the President to bypassordinary courts and refer people suspected of terrorism to any judicial authority he likes,including military and emergency courts which have no right of appeal and a long history ofconducting unfair trials.Other amendments to the Constitution appear to be politically motivated. One amendmentbans the establishment of political parties based on religion – apparently targeting theopposition Muslim Brotherhood following its success in the 2005 elections, when it won 88 seats.Another reduces the role of judges in supervising elections and referendums – apparently aresponse to what happened in 2006, when two senior judges denounced the government’sfailure to act in response to evidence of electoral fraud during the 2005 elections. Another allowsthe President to dissolve parliament unilaterally.A week after the parliamentary vote, on 26 March, the government held a referendum on theconstitutional amendments. The opposition, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, called for a boycotton the grounds that the lightning referendum prevented an effective “no” campaign. Armedpolice were deployed in the streets in response to a wave of protests around the country.According to the authorities, the amendments were approved by more than three-quartersof voters in a turnout of 27 per cent. Independent national monitoring groups put the turnout atno more than 10 per cent.Amnesty International fears that the constitutional amendments and the planned anti-terrorism law will be used to further stifle peaceful political dissent, as well as cement patterns ofserious abuses by security forces.This report ends with a list of detailed recommendations. In particular, Amnesty Internationalcalls on the Egyptian government to:repeal all emergency legislation that allows for human rights violations, particularly unfairtrials before emergency and military courts, and cease such violations;ensure that the planned new anti-terrorism law complies fully with international humanrights law and standards;condemn torture and other ill-treatment, ensure that all allegations of such abuses arepromptly and independently investigated, and bring the perpetrators to justice;end incommunicado and secret detention;end administrative detention; andmake public the names of all alleged terrorist suspects who have been unlawfully transferredto Egypt from US custody and other countries, and end all participation in unlawful transfersinto and out of Egypt.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 4
4
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
Backgroundince the 1970s violence by armed Islamist groups and counter-violence by police andsecurity forces have blighted Egypt and resulted in gross abuses of human rights. Theviolence, which included the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat in October 1981,peaked in the 1990s. Armed groups targeted government officials and security forces as well asintellectuals, Egyptian Coptic Christians and tourists. One of the deadliest attacks, in Luxor in1997, left more than 50 people dead, most of them foreign tourists.4The rise in armed violence was accompanied by a shift in government policy. In December1992, President Hosni Mubarak started referring civilians suspected of security or terrorism-relatedoffences to military courts for trial.5The same year, a new law on combating terrorism (Law No. 97of 1992) was introduced, which included a vague definition of terrorism and widened the scopeof activities considered to be of a terrorist nature. Both the legislation regulating trials beforemilitary courts and the new law provided for the death penalty. Hundreds of people wereconvicted by military tribunals and many of them were sentenced to death, some in absentia. Inthe face of such repressive measures, many members and sympathizers of unauthorized Islamistgroups went underground or fled abroad.In late 1997, the leadership of al-Gama‘a al-Islamiya (Islamic Group), the main groupresponsible for armed attacks in the 1990s, renounced violence and called on its members tostop launching attacks in Egypt and abroad. For the next few years Egypt was virtually free ofsuch violence.From 2004 onwards, however, there was a string of bomb attacks in the Sinai Peninsula thatwere blamed by the authorities on Tawhid wal Jihad (Unity and Holy War), an armed politicalgroup that allegedly has links with al-Qa’ida. The attacks, which killed and injured hundreds ofcivilians, included:October 2004 – three bomb attacks in the Red Sea villages of Taba, Nuweiba and Ras al-Shitanwhich killed 34 people.July 2005 – simultaneous bomb attacks in the Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Sheikh which killed atleast 88 people.April 2006 – bomb attacks in the Red Sea resort of Dahab which killed at least 23 people.In addition, in April 2005 there were three attacks on crowded tourist destinations in Cairothat the authorities said were committed by a separate group of individuals. On 7 April, a suicidebomber killed three foreigners in Khan al-Khalili market in al-Azhar district. On 30 April, a mancarrying an explosive device jumped from the bridge in ‘Abd al-Mun‘im Riyad Square; his fiancéetogether with his sister fired at a tourist bus in Sayyida ‘Aicha Square on the same day.Amnesty International unreservedly condemns such attacks against civilians and calls forthose responsible to brought to justice.6It recognizes the Egyptian government’s responsibilityto maintain public safety and to punish crime, including by preventing, investigating andpunishing acts of terrorism. In carrying out its responsibilities, however, the Egyptian authoritiesmust abide at all times by relevant international human rights law and standards, including theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture andOther Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Convention against Torture)
S
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 5
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
5
and other treaties to which Egypt is a state party. These treaties set out standards to whichgovernments must adhere at all times, even after the most heinous crimes. Any law, policy orpractice aimed at countering terrorism must never undermine the rule of law or fail to complyfully with international human rights law and standards.The Egyptian authorities have failed in this respect. In their persistent attempts to eradicatewhat they call “terrorist cells”, they have carried out mass arbitrary arrests and tried, convicted andsentenced people using unfair proceedings and with little evidence to substantiate the charges.Many other people continue to be held in administrative detention by the security authoritiesalthough their release has been ordered on numerous occasions by the (Emergency) SupremeState Security Courts (henceforth, emergency courts).At the international level, the Egyptian government has blamed governments in Europe andnorth America for harbouring Egyptian terrorist suspects and has sought their return. Many ofthose who have been returned, however, have then reportedly suffered human rights violations,including arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and other ill-treatment, and unfair trials at thehands of the Egyptian authorities. Some of them appear to have been victims of enforceddisappearance.Several transfers of Egyptian nationals from abroad have been carried out in collaborationwith US, European and Arab governments. In some cases, the return has followed an extraditionrequest by the Egyptian authorities. In others, the return has been the result of what the USauthorities call “renditions” – the transfer of people between countries without due legal process– or of a failed asylum claim. All these returns have violated the principle of non-refoulement andhave been carried out despite documentation provided by national and international non-governmental organizations to highlight the high risks of torture and other abuses that facethose threatened with forcible return.Some foreign governments have argued that the use of bilateral measures such as “diplomaticassurances” (or “diplomatic contacts”) eliminates the risk that Egyptians suspected of involvementin terrorism either abroad or in Egypt will be arrested and tortured or otherwise ill-treated inEgypt. Such bilateral agreements between governments, however, are not binding in internationallaw, unlike the treaties prohibiting torture to which Egypt is a party but has consistently breached.Amnesty International has fundamental concerns about the use of “diplomatic assurances” tojustify the return of foreign nationals who are considered to be a security threat. In the case ofEgypt, Amnesty International is additionally concerned that, in practice, no judicial control can beexercised over the conduct and activities of the General Intelligence (Mukhbarat) and the SSI, whowould most likely be responsible for detaining the returnees.After the attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001, US political leaders praised Egypt’srecord of dealing with terrorism. For instance, on 26 September 2001, Colin Powell, then USSecretary of State, expressed his “appreciation for the commitment that Egypt has made toworking with us as we move forward to deal with the scourge of terrorism. Egypt, as all of usknow, is really ahead of us on this issue. They have had to deal with acts of terrorism in recentyears in the course of their history. And we have much to learn from them and there is much wecan do together.”7In exchange for the return of wanted Egyptian nationals from abroad, Egypt became a keydestination in the US-led global “war on terror”. Scores of individuals suspected of links toterrorist groups have been sent back to Egypt so that information could be obtained from
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 6
6
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
them. According to persistent and consistent allegations by such returnees and others, tortureand other forms of ill-treatment were routinely used against them both during theirinterrogation at the General Intelligence and SSI detention facilities and when they weretransferred to prisons.8The torture methods described included blindfolding, beating,suspension in painful positions, electric shocks, drugging, rape and death threats. Solitaryconfinement and sleep deprivation were also frequently reported.In May 2005, while visiting the USA, Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif stated that 60 or70 people had been transferred to Egypt by US intelligence services since September 2001.When questioned about this statement during a visit to London in March 2006, he stated that:“[t]hat number would vary over time, so it is very difficult to pin it down”. Neither statementclarified which authorities were responsible for the arrests and detentions, where the detaineeswere being held, whether they had access to the outside world, or whether there were plans tocharge and try the detainees. The Egyptian authorities have also failed to divulge the identities ofthose concerned and the circumstances of their return.The Egyptian government continues to support the US-led “war on terror”. In its first messageto the newly elected UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, it stressed the importance ofencouraging the UN to mobilize and co-ordinate international efforts to fight terrorism.9At thesame time, however, Egypt refuses to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion andprotection of human rights while countering terrorism to visit the country to assess Egypt’shuman rights record in the “war on terror”, despite repeated requests by the Special Rapporteurto do so. Egypt also continues to refuse access to the Special Rapporteurs on torture and on theindependence of judges and lawyers.
Egypt’s counter-terrorism lawsgyptians have lived under a state of emergency for most of the past 40 years.10The currentstate of emergency has been in force continuously since 1981. The emergency provisionshave been renewed regularly without any proper review and in violation of international law, inparticular the ICCPR.11In April 2006 the state of emergency was renewed once again for a furthertwo years, despite repeated calls by human rights groups for it to be lifted.
E
The emergency legislation confers wide powers on security officials and the executiveauthority. These powers facilitate numerous violations of human rights, including arbitrarydetention, torture or other ill-treatment and unfair trials, violations that have been perpetratedwith impunity over many years. The legislation also severely restricts the rights to freedom ofexpression, association and assembly, and allows people charged with certain offences to facegrossly unfair trials before military and emergency courts.In January 2004, in an attempt to limit the use of emergency legislation, President Mubarakordered the abolition of most military orders issued under the emergency provisions since 1981– except those purportedly aimed at protecting public security. The previous year, in 2003, theState Security Courts had been abolished. However, the exceptional powers given to the PublicProsecution under Law No. 105 of 1980, which established these courts, were reinstated throughamendments to the Code of Criminal Procedures (CCP).The Emergency Law (Law No. 162 of 1958, as amended) gives sweeping powers to lawenforcement officials, in particular SSI officers. Under Article 3, a suspect may be detained for a
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 7
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
7
prolonged period without charge or trial.12The Ministry of Interior orders detentions. In urgentcases, these orders can be made verbally, provided that they are supported by a written orderwithin eight days. Anyone held in administrative detention under Article 3 has certain rights ofappeal, but the process is complex and regularly abused by the authorities.The law stipulates that detainees must be informed immediately of the reasons for theirarrest, be given access to a lawyer, and be allowed to contact anyone they choose to tell them oftheir arrest. In practice, however, those detained are often not informed of the reason for theirarrest, and they are not permitted family visits for 30 days. Furthermore, Article 6 does not requirelaw enforcement officials to abide by the arrest and detention procedures specified in theConstitution and other Egyptian laws when apprehending people who have breached ordersissued under the Emergency Law or are suspected of crimes mentioned in those orders.The Emergency Law gives the Egyptian President the power to transfer any case involving acrime listed in the Penal Code or other law to an emergency court. It also empowers thePresident to determine the composition of emergency courts, including by nominating militaryofficers to act as judges.13The President is also entitled by virtue of Article 6 of the Code ofMilitary Justice to transfer any case to a military court. Sentences handed down by these courtsare considered final and subject only to a presidential review, thus preventing defendants fromappealing before a higher tribunal, as required by international law.14The Emergency Law also empowers the executive to order the detention without charge ortrial of anyone suspected on the basis of the vaguely defined offences of endangering “nationalsecurity” or “public order”. Thousands of people continue to be held under administrativedetention orders even though courts have acquitted them or repeatedly ordered their release.This practice of “recurrent detention” is frequently used by the Egyptian authorities to detainindividuals, mainly members or sympathizers of unauthorized Islamist groups, without charge ortrial for prolonged periods. Some have been held since the early 1990s.The Anti-Terrorism Law (Law No. 97 of 1992) gives even greater powers to security bodiesand the Public Prosecutor, and further limits individuals’ rights, including by restricting freedomof expression, association and assembly. It too has been used as the legal basis for trials ofcivilians before military courts, a practice that violates international standards.Shortly after the Anti-Terrorism Law was introduced, the UN Human Rights Committeeconcluded that it contravenes a number of rights enshrined in the ICCPR, in particular Articles 6,7, 9 and 15.15The Committee also stated that the “definition of terrorism contained in that law isso broad that it encompasses a wide range of acts of differing gravity”.16It called on Egypt toreview the law, especially those provisions that widened the scope of the death penalty. Until2003, when the law that abolished the State Security Courts was passed,17the Anti-Terrorism Lawallowed the judicial police to detain suspects for up to seven days before referring them to theoffice of the Public Prosecutor.18In March 2006, the government announced that a committee had been charged withdrafting a new anti-terrorism law to replace the emergency legislation. Amnesty Internationalsent a memorandum to President Mubarak and other members of the Egyptian governmentwhich urged them to ensure that the new law does not entrench powers that have for manyyears facilitated torture and other ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, unfair trials and other serioushuman rights violations. Amnesty International asked for an opportunity to see and comment onthe draft law and sought information on a number of cases of individuals detained in connection
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 8
8
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
with alleged terrorist activities. A copy of the memorandum was also handed to the Minister ofInterior by Amnesty International’s Secretary General during a visit to Cairo in September 2006. InDecember Amnesty International again sought a response to the memorandum during ameeting with officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At the time of writing, AmnestyInternational had not received a response.On 26 December 2006, in a statement before the People’s Assembly, President Mubarakannounced his proposal to amend 34 articles of Egypt’s Constitution. As highlighted above, ofparticular concern is amended Article 179, which paves the way for the introduction of a newanti-terrorism law. In March 2007, the amendments were adopted in parliament and endorsed ina referendum that was boycotted by the political opposition and others and widely criticized byindependent national monitors as fraudulent.On the eve of the vote in parliament and before the referendum, Amnesty Internationalwarned that the amendments would entrench existing practices of arbitrary arrest anddetention, torture and unfair trials, and further erode human rights protection. It also stated thatthey would violate Egypt’s international human rights obligations.19Amnesty International renews its calls on the Egyptian government to ensure that theplanned anti-terrorism law complies fully with international human rights law and standards. UNbodies, including the Commission on Human Rights, the General Assembly and the SecurityCouncil, have repeatedly affirmed this principle.20Most recently, this commitment was renewedin the World Summit Outcome document adopted by the High-level Plenary Meeting of the UNGeneral Assembly in September 2005, in which Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit participatedon behalf of the Egyptian government. The document states that:“[I]nternational cooperation to fight terrorism must be conducted in conformity withinternational law, including the Charter and relevant international conventions and protocols.States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with their obligationsunder international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and internationalhumanitarian law.”21Amnesty International acknowledges that there is no internationally agreed definition ofterrorism. However, any definition must conform with established principles of criminal law, inparticular the principle of the legality of the offence (that is, the requirement to limit both criminalliability and punishment to clear and precise provisions in the law that existed and wereapplicable at the time when the offence was committed, except in cases where a later lawimposes a lighter sentence),22and the principle of individual responsibility (that is, criminalresponsibility must be individual, not collective).Amnesty International calls on the Egyptian authorities to ensure that the new anti-terrorismlaw defines “acts of terrorism” clearly and in unambiguous terms, in a manner that does notimpinge upon or criminalize acts that are consistent with the exercise of rights and freedomsguaranteed under international human rights law, including freedom of expression, associationand peaceful assembly. The organization also urges the Egyptian authorities to review thedefinition of terrorism in the Penal Code in light of the principles specified above, if it is to beused in the new anti-terrorism law; or repeal Article 86 of the Penal Code.Furthermore, Amnesty International urges the government not to use the definitions ofterrorism provided in the African Union Convention on the Prevention and Combating of
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 9
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
9
Terrorism and its Protocol, or the Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, as these aretoo vague and could be used to criminalize the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression andother human rights.23The Egyptian authorities must ensure that the new anti-terrorism law will not in any wayfacilitate torture or other ill-treatment, and will include the safeguards against such abusesspelled out in international standards such as the Convention against Torture. To date, suchsafeguards have been signally lacking in Egyptian legislation. In addition, to ensure the fairness ofany trial of those charged with terrorism-related offences, the new law must afford the accusedwith the facilities to defend themselves effectively, including the right to be assisted by legalcounsel promptly and during interrogation.Finally, Amnesty International urges the Egyptian authorities to ensure that the new anti-terrorism law does not include the death penalty as a punishment for any offence.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 10
10
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
2. Arbitrary arrests andunlawful detention
rbitrary arrests followed by incommunicado and secret detention have been a persistentfeature of the Egyptian government’s counter-terrorism measures for decades. State securityforces have carried out mass arrests in the aftermath of bomb or armed attacks, increasinglyincluding in their haul the wives, sisters, elderly parents and sometimes even children of thosesuspected. Many of these relatives have effectively been held as hostages by the SSI for up toseveral months in order to force their wanted relatives to surrender or to gather informationabout suspects. In scores of cases, male relatives of suspects are reported to have been tortured,including with electric shocks, during detention. The detainees suspected of terrorist offencesthemselves have been held incommunicado for periods of weeks or months during which theyhave been tortured or otherwise ill-treated.
A
Mass arbitrary arrests
M
ass arrests have usually followed attacks by armed groups. For instance, thousands ofpeople were detained after the 2004 attacks in Taba and Nuweiba, the 2005 attacks in Cairoand Sharm al-Sheikh, and the 2006 explosions in Dahab. Government officials declared that suchsweeping raids were a necessary part of an effective investigation.Typically, arrests have been carried out in the early hours of the morning by SSI officialsassisted by officers from the paramilitary Central Security Forces (CSF) without recourse to dueprocess. Suspects’ relatives have often reported being threatened and intimidated by thearresting authorities. In cases where the suspect was absent at the time of the SSI raid, familymembers have frequently been detained instead, not as suspects themselves but in order toexert pressure on the suspect to surrender to the authorities, to obtain information on thesuspect’s whereabouts, or to extract information about someone else already in detention.
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 11
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
11
Many suspects arrested during such raids state that they were not informed of the reasons atthe time of their arrest. Their families were often told by the security officers making the arrestthat the detainee would be taken to a local SSI office or police station. However, on arrival at theplace of detention, detainees were not permitted to inform a person of their choice about theirdetention and circumstances, nor were they informed of the charges against them or of theirright to be assisted by a lawyer.In such cases, the arrests have violated the CCP and the Constitution, both of which stipulatethat anyone arrested or detained shall be informed of the reason for arrest or detention, beallowed to communicate with the outside world and be assisted by a lawyer immediatelyfollowing their arrest.24In general, the only detainees who have been informed of the reason for their arrest havebeen those taken into custody simply because they were related to a suspect. In some cases,such relatives have then been released but told that they should find the wanted person andconvince them to surrender to the authorities in order to stop the torture or other ill-treatmentof other relatives still in detention. Many relatives of suspects in the Taba bombing case, forinstance, were detained for up to five months and tortured or otherwise ill-treated in order toforce them to give information about the whereabouts of those being sought by the authoritiesor to induce the fugitives to surrender themselves to the authorities.The imprisonment of relatives and associates of people suspected of a crime as “substituteprisoners” constitutes arbitrary arrest and detention and is a violation of international humanrights law. Indeed, it may amount to the crime of hostage-taking under the InternationalConvention Against the Taking of Hostages, which Egypt ratified in 1981.
USAMA‘ABD AL-GHANI AL-NAKHLAWI’S FAMILYDuring the night of 21 October 2004, security officers tried to arrest Usama‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nakhlawi at his home in Nakhil, al-‘Arish, but found thathe was not there. Instead, according to the wanted man’s sister, SaharMuhammed ‘Abd al-Ghani, a primary school teacher, they detained herelderly uncle, ‘Eid ‘Abd al-Ghani, although he was not a suspect in the case.They then went to the house of the parents of her brother’s wife, MaryamSulaiman Hassan. There they forcibly removed the 21-year-old woman’sveil, blindfolded her and tied her hands behind her back, and beat herbefore taking her to the SSI office in al-‘Arish. As a result, she was separatedfrom her 15-month-old daughter, Hagar, who was left with hergrandmother.The next morning, security officers raided Sahar Muhammed ‘Abd al-Ghani’s home while everybody was still asleep. She was arrested, togetherwith her two brothers, Ayman and Ahmed, and her parents. They all hadtheir hands tied behind their backs and were blindfolded, then draggedinto police cars. Ahmed was reportedly beaten before being pushed insidethe car. They were all taken to the SSI office in al-‘Arish, where theirblindfolds were removed and the men were separated from the women.They were told that they would be held until Usama surrendered himselfto the police.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 12
12
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
After they had been detained for one week, Sahar and her brotherAyman were taken by security police in a red car and told to point out thehouse of their uncle, Gumaa, and two of his sons, Magdi and Muhammed.These three were then arrested and also taken to the SSI office in al-‘Arish,together with another cousin, Muhammed Abdallah.The wanted man’s elderly uncle, Eid ‘Abd al-Ghani, is reported to havebeen released after he had spent a week in detention and to have been toldby the security police to find Usama ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nakhlawi. Sahar, hermother Na‘ima and sister-in-law Maryam were detained for 14 dayswithout charge or trial and then released, while Sahar’s uncle Gumaa andhis two sons were held for two months and then released without charge.Sahar’s brother Ahmed, who reportedly became seriously ill because of thepoor conditions of detention, was released on 23 December 2004. Herbrother Ayman and her father, Muhammed ‘Abd al-Ghani, were releasedwithout charge after five months in detention.While detained, none of Usama ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nakhlawi’s relativeswas allowed visits, contact with a lawyer or medical attention. Ayman andGumaa were reportedly tortured at the SSI office in al-‘Arish. With theexception of ‘Eid ‘Abd al-Ghani, all the male members of the family werereportedly detained in the CSF military camp in al-Masa‘id, a fewkilometres west of al-‘Arish, where detention conditions were reportedlyharsh.Usama ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nakhlawi was arrested in August 2005 andtried in connection with the Taba and Nuweiba bombings. On 30November 2006, he was sentenced to death together with two others. Allthree remain in Tora prison in Cairo.
Incommunicado and secret detention
I
n many cases, the authorities have failed to disclose any information about those arrested totheir families, including information about their whereabouts. When detainees’ relatives haveinquired about them at the local SSI office or police station to which the arresting officers saidthey would be taken, they have been told that they were not there but not informed as to theircurrent place of detention. Similarly, when families have made inquiries with the office of thePublic Prosecutor or have written to the Ministries of Interior and Justice, these too have failedto provide them with any information or clarification of their relatives’ fate.As far as the outside world is concerned, these detainees have become victims of enforceddisappearance, a gross violation of international law. In virtually all cases, the disappearance hasbeen of short duration, but in some cases of those returned from abroad it has lasted for monthsor even years.When families have discovered the whereabouts of their relative through informal means,usually via former fellow detainees, they have not been allowed to visit them in detention or havebeen permitted to do so only after long periods during which their relatives have been heldincommunicado. For many of those arrested following the Taba bombing, for example, no family
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 13
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
13
visits were permitted outside major national holidays. Those tried in connection with the Cairobombings were not allowed family visits for over a year, until their trial opened in June 2006.One reason for the authorities’ failure to divulge information about the whereabouts ofdetainees is widely believed to be the result of the powers invested in the Ministry of Interior todetermine where particular detainees are held.25Article 1bis of Law No. 396 of 1956 – the Law onPrison Regulations – states that “individuals deprived of their liberty can be detained in one ofthe places of detention previously specified in this law as well as in places defined by decree ofthe Minister of Interior…” This has led to detainees being held in SSI detention centres and CSFmilitary camps, premises that, unlike other more regular detention facilities, are not liable toinspection by the Public Prosecutor or any other judicial authority as required by Article 42 of theCCP and Article 85 of the Law on Prison Regulations.In most cases, security detainees have been held in the local SSI office or police station for acouple of days and then transferred, usually to the SSI headquarters in Lazoghly Square in Cairoor to a prison near Cairo. Despite many reports that people have been held in SSI detentioncentres, the Ministry of Interior stated that “these [SSI] premises are not deemed detentionpremises since they are considered security information systems which have no jurisdictionwhatsoever over detention operations. Therefore, regular inspection visits [as specified in Article42 of the CCP] are not made to such premises.”26Since these detention centres are notrecognized officially as prisons, no records of those detained there or their detention periods arekept. Holding detainees in such informal detention centres, even for a short period, violatesArticle 41 of the CCP, which prohibits detaining people in unofficial detention facilities. It appearsalso that the office of the Public Prosecutor is not informed about people detained in suchpremises or the reasons for their detention by the SSI, and so is unable to provide any oversightof detention conditions or the treatment of the detainees while they are held in such places.As a result of these practices, many security detainees have been held for weeks or monthsincommunicado and reportedly tortured.Incommunicado detention has been condemned by international human rights bodies andmechanisms as a human rights violation that facilitates other violations such as enforceddisappearance, torture or other ill-treatment. The UN Special Rapporteur on torture hasrepeatedly stressed that torture often takes place while prisoners are held incommunicado,unable to contact people outside who could help them or find out what is happening to them,and has called for this practice to end. All detainees should be brought before an independentjudicial authority without delay after being taken into custody, and have access to relatives,lawyers and doctors without delay and regularly thereafter.27
SIX IN SECRET DETENTIONSix Egyptian nationals – Muhammed ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Gamal, Sayyid Imam‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Sharif (also known as Abu al-Fadl), ‘Isam Shu’aibMuhammed, Khalifa Sayyid Badawi, Uthman al-Samman and Ali Abd al-Rahim — who were unlawfully returned to Egypt from Yemen in February2002, are still being detained without charge, and without access to legalcounsel, medical treatment or relatives, according to information receivedby Amnesty International.28They are being held incommunicado and insecret – victims of enforced disappearance.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 14
14
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
Prior to their return to Egypt, the six had been detained by Yemen’sPolitical Security without trial in Sana’a since 2001.In 1999, four of the men had been tried in their absence by militarycourts in Egypt. In what became known as the “returnees from Albania”trial, Muhammed ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Gamal, Sayyid Imam ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Sharif, ‘Isam Shu’aib Muhammed and Khalifa Sayyid Badawi weresentenced to death, life imprisonment, 10 and seven years’ imprisonmentrespectively, after an unfair trial before the Heikstep military court nearCairo. Uthman al-Samman was tried in his absence before a military courtin 1992 and was also sentenced to death. The authorities have made noinformation available about these men or whether they plan to retry them.In March 2007, Muhammed ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Gamal and Sayyid Imam‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Sharif were reportedly transferred to Tora Prison from anunknown detention centre where they had been kept since their forciblereturn from Yemen. It was reported that, as members of the EgyptianIslamic Jihad formerly headed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, they were preparingto announce an initiative renouncing violence in Egypt similar to that of al-Gama‘a al-Islamiya in 1997.29
Administrative detention“I have now spent more than 12 yearsin [administrative] detention duringwhich I have been subjected to allforms of torture and ill-treatment,prohibited from contacting mychildren and relatives. My family hasbeen displaced, my financial sourceslost, my business [in Pakistan]closed down and the future ofmy children wasted.”Mohamed ‘Abd Rahim el Sharkawy,describing his administrativedetention in Egyptian prisonseveral hundred people detained in connection with the bombings in Sinai between 2004and 2006 and in Cairo in April 2005 are being held in administrative detention. In all, todaythere are some 18,000 administrative detainees languishing in Egyptian prisons, some of whomhave been held continuously since the early 1990s.30Most of them are being held in conditionsthat amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Hundreds are reportedly ill withtuberculosis, skin diseases and other ailments that thrive due to the lack of adequate hygieneand medical care, poor food and severe overcrowding.31Hundreds of relatives of administrative detainees held a sit-in at the Lawyers’ Syndicatebuilding in Cairo for several months in the run-up to the September 2005 presidential electionsin protest against the continuing imprisonment of their relatives in harsh conditions despitenumerous release orders by emergency courts. They also mounted a protest in October 2005outside the Interior Ministry in Cairo’s Lazoghly Square.People arrested as terrorist suspects who are not charged or who are acquitted are often keptin administrative detention by the Interior Minister under emergency legislation. Under Article 3 ofthe Emergency Law, the Minister of Interior may “arrest and detain suspected persons or those whoendanger public order or security”. Anyone detained under this provision is entitled to lodge acomplaint against their detention 30 days after the detention order was issued. Such complaintsare referred to an emergency court, which must give a reasoned decision within 15 days. However,if the court determines that the detainee should be released, the Interior Minister has 15 days tochallenge the decision, during which the detainee continues to be held. In such circumstances, thecase is then referred to a second, equivalent court which also has 15 days to decide on theMinister’s objection. If the second court confirms the order to release, the detainee must then befreed. If not, the detainee continues to be held and is entitled to submit a new complaint to anemergency court and begin the whole process again once a further 30 days has elapsed.32
S
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 15
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
15
‘ABD AL-MUN’IM AL-SROUGI‘Abd al-Mun’im al-Srougi, aged 41, was arrested in June 1990 and has beendetained ever since. No charges have ever been brought against him. He hasbeen held in several prisons, including Abu Zaabal and Tora. Emergency courtshave reportedly issued at least eight orders for his release. Amnesty Internationalhas been campaigning on his behalf since 1995. In October 1996, the UN WorkingGroup on Arbitrary Detention adopted a decision that ‘Abd al-Mun’im al-Srougihad been detained arbitrarily in contravention of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights and the ICCPR.33At the time of writing, ‘Abd al-Mun‘im al-Srougi was in Wadi Natroon Prison, north-west of Cairo.
In practice, however, the detaining authorities often circumvent this procedure and do notrelease detainees in accordance with the decision of the second court. Instead, they secretlymove detainees to new places of detention, such as local police stations or SSI premises in Cairoor elsewhere, and hold them until new detention orders are issued against them by the Ministerof Interior on the false grounds that the detainee was released but immediately returned tocriminal or terrorist activities and was then rearrested.Some defendants have remained in detention following their acquittal by emergency ormilitary courts after a new detention order was issued against them by the Interior Minister.Detainees who persist in lodging complaints against their detention orders have beentransferred to remote prisons, hundreds of kilometres from their families, apparently in reprisaland to deter them from lodging further appeals. Lawyers representing such detainees have toldAmnesty International that this practice has caused detainees to desist from exercising their rightto challenge detention orders.Such use of administrative detention orders is unlawful. The UN Working Group on ArbitraryDetention has stated that “the use of ‘administrative detention’ under public security legislation,migration laws or other related administrative law, resulting in a deprivation of liberty forunlimited time or for very long periods without effective judicial oversight, as a means to detainpersons suspected of involvement in terrorism or other crimes, is not compatible withinternational human rights law.”34The ICCPR does allow for derogation of some of its provisions during proclaimed states ofemergency – but only if and to the extent that the situation constitutes a threat to the life of thenation. The Human Rights Committee has emphasized: “States parties may in no circumstancesinvoke Article 4 of the Covenant as justification for acting in violation of humanitarian law orperemptory norms of international law, for instance… through arbitrary deprivations of liberty”.In accordance with international law and in particular Article 9(3) of the ICCPR, anyone detainedon suspicion of criminal activity must be brought promptly before a judge and tried within areasonable time, or else released.Amnesty International has repeatedly reminded the Egyptian government of its obligationsunder international human rights law and drawn its attention to the requirement that detaineesbe brought before a judicial authority without delay, and either be charged with a recognizablycriminal offence and tried promptly and fairly, or released.The government has denied that detainees are held illegally in administrative detention afterthey have received release orders. In February 2006, an Interior Ministry official told the Egyptian
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 16
16
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
Parliamentary Human Rights Committee that new detention orders are issued to those whoserelease had been ordered by the courts only in cases where there is evidence that the person inquestion may be a public threat or has returned to harmful activities. A similar statement wasmade to Amnesty International in 1993 by an official from the Ministry of Interior. The practice,however, indicates otherwise.
MOHAMED‘ABD RAHIM EL SHARKAWYMohamed ‘Abd Rahim el Sharkawy has been in administrative detentionsince he was extradited to Egypt from Pakistan in May 1995. Six of hisseven children are still in Pakistan.Mohamed el Sharkawy had been arrested twice in Egypt in the 1980s – in1981 in connection with President Anwar Sadat’s assassination, and in 1987after an attempted assassination of the then Interior Minister. He wrote in aletter received by Amnesty International that he was tortured, including bybeing suspended from the ceiling for several days, given electric shocks andbeaten. Egyptian courts acquitted him on both occasions.In 1988, while in Saudi Arabia for al-Hadj, the Muslim pilgrimage, helearned that SSI officers were at his home in Cairo waiting to arrest him. Hedecided not to return to Egypt and instead went to Pakistan. In 1989, hisEgyptian wife and children joined him there and three years later he wasgranted Pakistani citizenship.In July 1994, he was arrested at his home in Pakistan following anextradition request by the Egyptian authorities. Although courts in Peshawarand Lahore, as well as the Pakistan Supreme Court, had still to rule on his legalchallenge that he could not be extradited to Egypt as a Pakistani citizen, he wassent back to Egypt in May 1995.Once back in Egypt he was detained incommunicado for severalmonths, during which he was allegedly tortured. Although he wasacquitted by the emergency court after appealing against the order of theMinister of Interior to detain him, he has remained in administrativedetention ever since. He says that when there were terrorist attacks in the1990s in Egypt, he was taken from prison, interrogated and tortured.Mohamed el Sharkawy has spent the past 12 years between al-Aqrab,Damanhour, Fayoum, Abu Zaabal and Tora prisons. Courts have ordered hisrelease at least 15 times. He is currently in Liman Tora Prison. He says hishealth is bad because of the torture he suffered, lack of adequate medicaltreatment and harsh prison conditions. A medical report confirms that he hasherniated vertebral discs, which cause him a lot of pain in his back and legs.
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 17
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
17
3. Torture and otherill-treatment
.A.E.M., a 22-year-old university student, described to Amnesty International the torture hewas subjected to by Egypt’s security forces. He was never charged, his allegations oftorture have never been investigated, and he has received no reparation for his ordeal.W.A.E.M. was arrested at around 3am on 29 October 2004 at his home. He was blindfoldedand taken to the SSI office in al-‘Arish. He was asked to identify certain individuals but when hesaid that he had no idea who they were, he was insulted and repeatedly beaten on his face. Hisinterrogators then stripped him naked, tied his hands behind his back, bound his feet together,and then suspended him by his wrists from the top of an open door. A wire was attached to oneof his toes and another to his penis. He was then given electric shocks. He had water poured onhis face and was made to lie on the floor. All this happened while he was naked and blindfolded.The same forms of torture continued for a week. Sometimes he was also forced to be presentwhile other detainees were being interrogated and tortured, and at other times he could hearthe screams of fellow detainees being interrogated. He said, “The worse thing that happened tome was taking my clothes off because it affects my psychology”.W.A.E.M. told Amnesty International that he spent 14 days in the SSI office in al-‘Arish beforebeing transferred to a CSF detention centre in al-Masa‘id after the ‘Eid el-Fitr holiday marking theend of Ramadan. At the CSF detention facility, he was held in a cell with some 35 others, in verycramped conditions. The inmates, who all had to sleep on the floor, received no more than onemeal a day, were not allowed out of the cell and were denied medical attention. As a result ofbeing suspended with his hands behind his back, his arms were badly injured and he could notmove them freely for 45 days. During this period, he was fed and assisted by other detainees. Hisrequest to see a doctor was rejected.
W
“They told me ‘we will suspend you’.I did not understand what theymeant. Then they tied up my handsbehind my back and tied up my feetand suspended me from my handson the edge of an open door andstarted to torture me.”
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 18
18
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
After two months in al-Masa‘id, he was returned to the SSI office in al-‘Arish where he washeld for a further 20 days. He was denied permission to sit his university exams. He was thentransferred to Tora Prison, where he says he was again interrogated and assaulted whileblindfolded. He was eventually released without charge in April 2005.Across Egypt, torture and other forms of ill-treatment are systematic in detention centres.Detainees held for their political beliefs or activities, especially alleged members of unauthorizedIslamist groups, including people returned from abroad, are particularly at risk of torture andother ill-treatment, notably at the SSI headquarters in Lazoghly Square, Cairo, as well as at otherSSI branches, police stations and occasionally prisons.SSI officers have routinely taken people from prisons for interrogation without theauthorization of the Public Prosecutor – a clear violation of the CCP and the Law on PrisonRegulations. Both laws prohibit police officers from contacting a detainee without writtenauthorization from the Public Prosecutor.35In dozens of cases reported to AmnestyInternational by lawyers and former detainees, detainees were taken from Tora Prison to the SSIpremises and tortured or otherwise ill-treated during interrogation. Usually, the detainee’s filecontains no record of these transfers. Egyptian law actually prohibits such transfers, but thereare no provisions to prosecute or punish those who undertake them.36Torture has taken different forms during these interrogation sessions.37The mostfrequently reported methods have been beatings; electric shocks; suspension by the wristsand ankles and in contorted positions for long periods; and threats that the victim or theirrelatives will be killed, raped or otherwise sexually abused. Some detainees said they wereinterrogated while fellow inmates were being tortured nearby. Others said that they heard thescreams of people being tortured and saw the injuries of prisoners after they had beeninterrogated. Many of those detained in connection with the attacks in Taba and Sharm el-Sheikh said that their hands were tied and that they were stripped naked and blindfoldedthroughout the sessions.Such practices were noted by the UN Committee against Torture in relation to Ahmed Agizaand Muhammed El-Zari, who were transferred to Egypt from Sweden and allegedly tortured (seeChapter 5). “Egypt resorted to consistent and widespread use of torture against detainees, and…the risk of such treatment was particularly high in the case of detainees held for political andsecurity reasons.”38Despite such widespread knowledge of the systemic recourse to torture and other ill-treatment in Egypt’s detention centres, especially in security cases, some states, includingSweden, the UK and the USA, have sought assurances from the Egyptian authorities that aperson transferred to Egypt will not suffer these abuses, in at least implicit recognitionthat torture is common in Egypt.39Such assurances, however, are not worth the paperthey are written on given that those providing the assurances already have a record ofbreaking pledges made to the wider international community when ratifying internationaltreaties that ban torture and ill-treatment. Moreover, reliance on such assurances does notsatisfy the absolute obligation under international law not to transfer anyone to a countrywhere they risk torture or other ill-treatment (the principle of non-refoulement). In a pressstatement in March 2007, referring to the case of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammed El-Zari,the Swedish Ministry of Justice stated, after the fact, that the government had concludedthat the guarantees it received from Egypt “should not have been considered to besufficient”.
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 19
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
19
In a response to one of the Human Rights Committee’s comments, the Egyptian governmentsaid in 2004 that those returned forcibly to Egypt from other countries had been presentedbefore the Public Prosecutor upon arrival and that none of them had “filed a complaint about ill-treatment”.40This is misleading. In fact, many of the people who were returned from abroad werearrested upon arrival, kept for over a year in incommunicado and secret detention, and torturedor otherwise ill-treated (see Chapter 5).
AHMED ABDALLAH RABAAIt appears that Ahmed Abdallah Rabaa was tortured and otherwise ill-treated during nearly three months’ detention either because his brotherMuhammad was a terrorist suspect, or because of a mix-up in names bythe security forces.When police came to arrest his brother on 22 October 2004 at aroundmidnight, Ahmed Rabaa was reportedly hit on the head with the butt ofa machine gun. He was handcuffed, thrown to the floor and asked tokneel down while security officers searched the house. He was set freewhen the police arrested Muhammad.41Ahmed Rabaa told Amnesty International that about three weekslater, on around 15 November, the security officers returned and askedhim to come with them for a few hours. He was reportedly kept for twodays in the SSI offices in al-‘Arish, then transferred to the SSIheadquarters in Cairo together with 16 others. He was held there for 11 or12 days and regularly interrogated. He was later transferred to ToraPrison and held there for around 33 days. He was then brought back tothe SSI headquarters in Cairo, where he was detained for a further week.During this period, he said, he was interrogated and tortured three tofour times a day. He described being beaten, suspended by the ankles andwrists in contorted positions, and given electric shocks to sensitive partsof the body, including his lips, penis and head. Every time he wasinterrogated and tortured, he was blindfolded and made to take off all hisclothes. He said that a doctor came almost every day to check on thosewho had been tortured.Throughout his detention Ahmed Rabaa had no access to his lawyeror family, and at no point was he brought before a judicial authority.On around 7 January 2005, he was told by SSI officers that there hadbeen a mix-up about the names of people they thought he knew, and hewas returned to Tora Prison. He was released from there at the end ofFebruary 2005. The authorities have failed to investigate his allegations oftorture and to take action against the perpetrators, and he has received nocompensation.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 20
20
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
Egyptian law and tortureorture and other forms of ill-treatment are prohibited by the ICCPR and the Conventionagainst Torture, which Egypt has ratified. However, because of the narrow definition of torturein Egyptian legislation, only some of the practices banned internationally are prohibited andcriminalized under Egyptian law.42Egyptian law defines torture narrowly in the context of forcing an accused to confess. Deaththreats and physical torture are criminalized only when they happen following an unlawful arrestby someone purporting to be a government officer.43The law therefore does not address asituation where a person may be tortured for other reasons (such as to extract information,intimidate, punish or degrade) or when the victim is not accused of an offence.The Egyptian authorities have been notified several times that this definition of torture is farmore restrictive than the definition under the Convention against Torture.44In June 1994, forinstance, the Committee against Torture called on Egypt to “provide in its penal legislation for allforms of torture”.45To date, no such amendments have been made.Furthermore, states should not simply criminalize torture, but should also take “effectivelegislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territoryunder its jurisdiction”.46The Human Rights Committee has additionally referred to the need forprevention, investigation, punishment and reparation for torture and other ill-treatment.47Egyptian law does contain some safeguards to protect detainees from torture and other ill-treatment. Article 36 of the CCP stipulates that a detainee must be brought before a PublicProsecutor for questioning within 24 hours of arrest, after which the detention period can beextended or the detainee should be released. Article 42 of the Constitution and Article 40 of theCCP prohibit the “physical and moral harm” of detainees. Article 57 of the Constitution providesthat civil and criminal proceedings in connection with torture as defined under the Penal Codeare not subject to any statute of limitation.In practice, however, these safeguards have been frequently breached and over-ridden byemergency law procedures, and have proved inadequate to protect detainees from torture andother ill-treatment. Indeed, the lack of effective safeguards has led to many deaths in custody.
T
DEATHS IN CUSTODYMuhammad Suleyman Youssef Ahmed and his cousin Ashraf Sa‘id Youssefdied in custody apparently as a result of torture. Both had been arrested inconnection with bombings in Cairo on 7 April 2005.Muhammad Ahmed, a 40-year-old primary school teacher from Shubraal-Kheima, north of Cairo, reportedly died on 29 April 2005 in policecustody shortly after arrest. His relatives told the media that although theysuspected that he had been tortured to death, they were coerced by theauthorities into signing a medical report that attributed the death to naturalcauses, and into burying the body the same day while police officers werepresent.
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 21
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
21
An Interior Ministry official told Amnesty International thatMuhammad Ahmed suffered “some health problems” that may havecaused or contributed to his death, but gave no details. AmnestyInternational is not aware of any official or formal investigation into thecircumstances and cause of death, even though they remain unclear.Ashraf Sa‘id Youssef, aged 28, was reportedly arrested on 29 April 2005in al-Manoufiya and held incommunicado for 13 days. His relatives learnedabout his whereabouts only when he was transferred to al-MinyalUniversity Hospital on 11 May 2005 with serious injuries. He died eightdays later. On 21 May, the Public Prosecutor claimed implausibly that,according to initial police reports, Ashraf Sa‘id Youssef caused his owninjuries by repeatedly banging his head against the wall of his cell.However, the government reportedly acknowledged that the injuriesincluded bruises on the chest and arms. The Public Prosecutor said that hehad ordered the body to be made available for forensic examination toestablish the cause of death. As far as Amnesty International is aware,however, some two years later, no such examination nor any properinvestigation into the death has taken place.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 22
22
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
4. Unfair trials
nternational human rights standards and Egyptian law include provisions that guaranteethe right to a fair trial, including the right to legal counsel, the obligation to investigateallegations of torture and other ill-treatment, and the ban on using evidence obtainedunder torture in judicial proceedings. However, these safeguards have regularly been violatedin cases deemed by the Egyptian authorities to affect national security as these are dealt within a parallel legal system applying “special” legal procedures.
I
Lack of equality before the law
P
eople accused of political or terrorism-related offences are deprived of their right toequality before the law as a result of the special procedures that apply throughout thelegal process, from prosecution to trial. The principle of equality is established underinternational law as well as the Egyptian Constitution.48This means that everyone should begranted, without discrimination, equal access to a court; that fair trial guarantees are equallyavailable to all; and that judges and officials do not act in a discriminatory way when enforcingthe law.
However, provisions of the emergency legislation as well as amendments to the EgyptianPenal Code and CCP violate this principle.49Cases involving offences deemed to be security-related are investigated by a special branch of the Public Prosecution — the Supreme StateSecurity Prosecution — or are referred by the President to the Supreme Military Prosecutionfor investigation.50The defendants are then tried before emergency or military courts,which violate a number of fair trial guarantees, including the right of appeal to a highertribunal.
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 23
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
23
Public Prosecution’s special powershe Public Prosecution has the power to initiate and proceed with a criminal caseby conducting investigations into criminal offences. It can do so through lawenforcement officers or by delegating the investigation to an examining magistrate.51However, the latter option remains an exception and is at the discretion of the PublicProsecution.In cases deemed to be security-related,52the Public Prosecution often decides to conductthe investigation itself using the Supreme State Security Prosecution, which specializes in suchoffences and is directly supervised by the Public Prosecutor. Since 1953, when the SupremeState Security Prosecution was established by decree of the Justice Minister, its powers havebeen expanded by other decrees.53Its members have been mandated to investigate securityoffences anywhere in Egypt as well as crimes referred to it by the President.Under Article 10 of the Emergency Law, the Public Prosecution has, in addition to itsnormal functions, the powers of an examining magistrate and those of the appeal court ofmisdemeanours held in camera (accusation chamber). These are the same powers as thosegiven to the Public Prosecution under the now-defunct law establishing State Security Courts.After the abolition of the State Security Courts in 2003, these powers were given to the PublicProsecution under the CCP when dealing with security offences.54Under the added Article206bis of the CCP, the Public Prosecution also accumulated the powers of the examiningmagistrates and those of the accusation chamber when dealing with terrorism offences.55Theonly difference between the added Article of the CCP and previous legislation is that thesepowers can now be exercised only by members of the Public Prosecution with at least the rankof chief prosecutor.Giving the Public Prosecution the judicial powers of the examining magistrate and theaccusation chamber suspends in practice a number of Articles in the CCP that require judicialpermission or oversight for certain procedures.56It also breaches the UN Guidelines on theRole of Prosecutors, namely that “the office of prosecutors shall be strictly separated fromjudicial functions.”57In practice, Article 206bis of the CCP gives sweeping powers to the Public Prosecutor todetain people suspected of terrorist offences. In any terrorism-related cases, the PublicProsecutor can order the pre-trial (“precautionary”) detention of such suspects for 15 days inhis capacity as a Public Prosecutor. He can also extend the detention for up to 45 days as anexamining magistrate and continue, as an accusation chamber, to renew the detention forperiods not exceeding 15 days each (reduced from 45 days in 2006). This means that thePublic Prosecutor has the power to detain people for up to five months (reduced from sixmonths in 2006) without independent judicial oversight as required by Articles 202 and 203of the CCP and international human rights standards.As a result, those held in “precautionary” detention are deprived of their right to bebrought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicialpower.58They are also denied the right to challenge their detention before a judicial authorityestablished by law in order to review the lawfulness of their detention.59
T
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 24
24
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
Lack of access to lawyers
P
eople arrested on political or security grounds in Egypt are rarely given prompt access toa lawyer.
A defendant’s right to legal counsel is one of the key safeguards for a fair trial, enshrined ininternational law,60and applies to all stages of the judicial process. The Human Rights Committeeand other human rights bodies have further recognized that the right to a fair trial requiresaccess to a lawyer during detention, interrogation and preliminary investigations. The right ofdetainees to be assisted by a lawyer when charged is also enshrined in the UN Basic Principles onthe Role of Lawyers. Principle 6 notes specifically that individuals charged with serious crimesshould have access to a lawyer “of experience and competence commensurate with the natureof the offence” who should be provided free of charge if the defendant does not have the meansto pay for such services.The Egyptian Constitution guarantees the right to legal counsel, including for those lackingfinancial means.61The CCP stipulates that anyone arrested or detained has the right to legalcounsel and that no one shall be interrogated without the presence of their lawyer (except incases where the suspect has been caught in the act of the crime or when there is fear of losingevidence).62Article 125 allows defence lawyers access to investigation documents one daybefore the interrogation of the suspect by the Public Prosecution and prohibits separating thelawyer from the suspect during interrogation. However, crucially, it also gives the examiningmagistrate and Public Prosecution the discretion to refuse such access.Public Prosecutor’s Decree No.1 of 2002 instructs Public Prosecutors’ offices to enable lawyers toobtain and review copies of the investigation documents at any stage of the investigation.63Thiswas meant to reinforce the right to equality between the defence and prosecution. In practice,however, defence lawyers have complained about their inability to access file documents,particularly when the investigation is carried out by the Supreme State Security Prosecution.Given the gravity of the charges in cases of alleged terrorist offences, Amnesty Internationalis deeply concerned that defendants accused of such offences do not appear to have had accessto legal counsel when initially brought before the Public Prosecution for interrogation. None ofthose detained in connection with the Taba and Sharm al-Sheikh bombings, for instance, hadlawyers with them during their interrogation by the Public Prosecutor. Furthermore, the defenceteam did not have access to the file documents until after the first session before the emergencycourt in Ismailia in July 2005. This violated the ICCPR and the CCP.64
Lack of investigations into torture allegations“Egyptian law guarantees to the victimin torture cases that an investigationwill be immediately conducted by anindependent judicial authority thatenjoys immunity, namely theDepartment of Public Prosecution”.65esponsibility for investigating allegations of torture or other ill-treatment lies with the PublicProsecutor, who should conduct an investigation in collaboration with the judicial police anddecide on whether or not to prosecute. In July 2005, the Public Prosecutor established a specialHuman Rights Protection Unit mandated to investigate, identify and follow up any human rightsviolations or reports of such violations.66Such provisions in the law have not been matched in practice. In many cases defendantshave told the Public Prosecutor on their first appearance before him that they have been
R
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 25
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
25
tortured in SSI premises. Their lawyers have reiterated the allegations. However, the PublicProsecutor has either failed to refer the defendants for medical examination or has not done soimmediately. In most cases, such defendants have been referred for a medical examination bythe trial judge upon the request of the defence lawyers, often several months after the allegedtorture happened and when marks of physical harm have faded or disappeared.This was the case for most of the defendants in the Taba trial, for instance. One of thedefendants, Usama ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nakhlawi, who was eventually sentenced to death, said hewas tortured during interrogation and asked the Public Prosecutor to refer him for examinationby a forensic doctor, but was reportedly told that the request had to be made by his lawyer.However, he was not allowed access to his lawyer until he was brought before the court inMarch 2006 and was only presented before a forensic medical doctor by order of the court inMay 2006, nine months after his arrest. Other defendants who complained about torture wereallegedly told by the Public Prosecutor that they had already been treated for torture injuries andthat they should not bring the matter up again.Even when a complaint has been filed with the office of the Public Prosecutor, torturevictims, their relatives and their legal representatives are unlikely to be told whether it is beinginvestigated or informed of the progress of any such investigation for weeks, months or evenyears. Unsurprisingly, this has caused a widespread loss of confidence in the system by thosewhom it is supposed to protect and their legal representatives. The result is that many victims oftorture now do not file complaints or press for information about investigations into complaintsof torture. When Amnesty International has raised allegations of torture with the Egyptianauthorities, it has generally received no response or been told that the abuses did not occur orthat there was no investigation because no official complaint had been received.Where investigations into allegations of torture or other ill-treatment have taken place, theyhave usually lasted for years and have rarely resulted in prosecutions. Indeed, prosecutions ofalleged torturers have been mounted only in cases in which torture was alleged to have causedor contributed to a detainee’s death, and then only when the deceased was not being held on asecurity-related charge. Amnesty International knows of no case involving the torture or death ofa detainee held on security grounds in which a member of the SSI has been convicted.In the most prominent trial of members of the SSI, who were accused of having torturedalleged members of Islamist groups between 1981 and 1983, all 44 accused SSI officers andprison officials were acquitted in 1989. The court accepted that the detainees had been torturedbut found that the perpetrators had not been adequately identified – the victims had beenblindfolded throughout their torture – with the result that those responsible for perpetrating theabuses escaped justice.A number of impediments constrain investigations of allegations of torture and other ill-treatment. Foremost is the prolonged detention of suspects incommunicado before they appearbefore the Public Prosecutor and trial judge, combined with the lack of an independentoversight mechanism to check on conditions and their treatment in pre-trial detention.Consequently, by the time the defendants who allege torture are medically examined, anyphysical signs of torture or other ill-treatment are likely to have healed and there is little or noforensic evidence to support the detainee’s claim. The common use of blindfolding, whichprevents or inhibits detainees from ascertaining the identities of their torturers or being able topoint them out subsequently, and the use of unofficial detention centres, including SSI premisesand CSF military detention facilities, further exacerbates the problem. According to Egyptian law,
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 26
26
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
a torture complaint must specify where the torture took place and identify the allegedperpetrators.A further problem is that there are no safeguards against possible further torture or ill-treatment, in law or in practice, to protect those who do lodge complaints against torture. This,and the fear that they could suffer reprisals at the hands of the security forces, also reportedlydeters some victims of torture from filing an official complaint or publicizing their case in themedia or through human rights organizations.International law obliges states to investigate complaints of torture and other ill-treatment.The Convention against Torture requires that each state party institutes a prompt and impartialinvestigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture or othercruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has been committed. Article 12 makes itclear that this duty is not dependent on a formal complaint being made by a detainee. Article 13guarantees the right of any individual to “complain to, and to have his case promptly andimpartially examined by, its competent authorities.” Such investigations should be capable ofleading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.
MAGDI IDRISSMagdi Idriss, aged 39 and an alleged member of an armed Islamist groupknown as Tanzim al-Wa’ad (Organization of the Promise), was arrested on8 May 2001. He was not brought before the Public Prosecutor until 5 Juneand was not interrogated until 12 September that year. For 77 days, he washeld in the SSI premises at Lazoghly Square, Cairo, where he says he wastortured. During his first appearance before the Public Prosecutor, he saidthat he had been tortured. The Prosecutor noted that Magdi Idriss hadwounds on the left hand and right thigh and that he alleged these were theresult of torture. Other defendants told the Public Prosecutor that they hadseen Magdi Idriss being tortured. The torture complaints were reiterated byhis lawyer, who requested a medical examination.Despite this, almost one month elapsed before Magdi Idriss received amedical examination; when it occurred, the medical examiner was unableto establish the cause of his injuries or when they were sustained. No fullinvestigation into the torture allegations was ever initiated.
Use of torture evidence
I
n many security or political cases, statements allegedly extracted under torture or other ill-treatment have been accepted as evidence by the court and have formed the basis forconvictions, although the defendants in question have retracted such statements in the courtroom.
The use in court of statements obtained under torture is prohibited by the Conventionagainst Torture.67The Human Rights Committee has also stated that the use or admissibility injudicial proceedings of statements or confessions obtained through torture or “other prohibitedtreatment” should be prohibited by law.68
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 27
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
27
In light of the difficulty in proving, in the absence of accurate medical evidence, that torture orother ill-treatment had occurred, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture has recommended that“[w]here allegations of torture or other forms of ill-treatment are raised by a defendant during trial,the burden of proof should shift to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that theconfession was not obtained by unlawful means, including torture and similar ill-treatment”.69The Special Rapporteur has also noted: “Prosecutors and judges should not requireconclusive proof of physical torture or ill-treatment (much less final conviction of an accusedperpetrator) before deciding not to rely as against the detainee on confessions or informationalleged to have been obtained by such treatment; indeed the burden of proof shall be on theState to demonstrate the absence of coercion.”70Although Egyptian law does not state as expressly that statements made as a result of tortureor ill-treatment should not be used as evidence in any proceedings, Article 42 of the EgyptianConstitution and Article 302 of the CCP provide that statements extracted under “coercion orthreat” must be dismissed and not relied upon in legal proceedings against the defendant.Many defendants have denied the charges against them when they first appeared before thetrial judge, usually several months after arrest. They have also stated that they were torturedwhile in SSI custody and that confessions were extracted from them using torture or other ill-treatment. At the lawyer’s request, the court has often referred them for medical examination.Subsequent reports presented by the prosecution during trial sessions have dismissed theirallegations. Many of the forensic reports of defendants in the Taba bombing trial, for instance,stated that there were marks on the bodies of the defendants that were consistent with torture,but that it was not possible to determine their cause because of the time that had elapsed sincethe alleged torture took place, which was up to nine months. In some cases, the tortureallegations were reportedly dismissed on the ground that the suspects could not name any oftheir alleged torturers.In all the cases highlighted in this report, the judges did not order any further investigation,thereby dismissing the torture allegations. Emergency and military courts have persistentlysentenced defendants to lengthy prison terms and to death on the basis of contested evidenceextracted under torture or other ill-treatment.
Military and emergency courts
F
or many years, civilians have faced grossly unfair trials before military or emergency courts,especially in cases involving alleged national security or terrorism-related offences.
Trials before these courts violate some of the most fundamental requirements ofinternational law, in particular the right to a fair and public hearing before a competent,independent and impartial tribunal established by law;71the right to have adequate time toprepare a defence;72the right to be defended by a lawyer of one’s choosing;73and the right toappeal against conviction and sentence to a higher tribunal.74The Egyptian President or one of his representatives decides under which court’s jurisdictioncertain cases fall. The appointment of military judges and the referral of cases to courts by theexecutive cast doubt on the independence and impartiality of these courts.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 28
28
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
Judgements by the emergency courts cannot be appealed and become final after ratificationby the President, who may decide to commute the sentence, revoke the judgement or order aretrial by another emergency court.75Whenever a court conducting the retrial decides on anacquittal, the verdict must also be ratified by the President.76This violates the right to appeal to ahigher tribunal and the prohibition of double jeopardy (trying someone twice for the sameoffence).77Similarly, those convicted by military courts have no right to appeal to a higher tribunal. Allsentences passed by military courts are subject only to review by the Military Appeals’ Bureau, abody composed of military judges, whose decision is ratified by the President.The violations mentioned above, together with the lack of independence and impartiality ofthe judiciary, are particularly disturbing in view of the complexity and seriousness of the offencesthat are subject to this procedure, and the fact that some are punishable by death.In July 1993 the UN Human Rights Committee expressed deep concern about military courtstrying civilians. It concluded that “military courts should not have the faculty to try cases which donot refer to offences committed by members of the armed forces in the course of their duties”.78In 2002, the Committee reiterated its concerns, noting that “military courts and State securitycourts have jurisdiction to try civilians accused of terrorism although there are no guarantees ofthose courts’ independence and their decisions are not subject to appeal before a higher court(Article 14 of the Covenant).”79Amnesty International has repeatedly called on the Egyptian government to stop tryingcivilians before military courts. The government continues to claim that such trials are fair andthat the President is lawfully empowered to refer crimes to the military judiciary. On 6 February2007, President Mubarak referred 40 members of the banned Muslim Brotherhood organizationto a military tribunal on charges of money laundering and membership of an illegal organization.On 28 February 2007, a court in Cairo upheld a decision in January 2007 by the Public Prosecutorto freeze the assets of 29 of them.
MILITARY COURT:TANZIM AL-WA’AD TRIALThe trial of 94 defendants accused of membership of Tanzim al-Wa’ad(Organization of the Promise), including seven who were not present incourt, opened before the Supreme Military Court in the Heikstep Camp,north of Cairo, on 18 November 2001. Defence lawyers complained that theinterrogation transcripts had been tampered with and that specific wordsand paragraphs had been erased by the authorities in order to hideevidence that the defendants were a group of people who had merelysought to provide assistance to Palestinians and Chechens, and were notinvolved in financing “terrorist groups” as the charges alleged. One lawyerreported that he was threatened by a security officer responsible for theinitial investigations, apparently because he questioned the findings ofthese investigations before the court.Seventy-five of the 94 defendants had been arrested during dawn houseraids in early May 2001, mainly in Cairo, Alexandria, al-Qalyubiyah, as-
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 29
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
29
Suways and Giza. Most were held in different SSI branches for at least 70days, during which they were reportedly tortured, including with electricshocks. They were presented before the Supreme State Security Prosecutionin June-July 2001.The detainees were not allowed to have their lawyers with them duringthe initial interrogation sessions before the Supreme State SecurityProsecution. At least 24 of them told the Public Prosecutor that they hadbeen tortured. Although some of them were referred to forensic doctors,the resultant examinations were not able, due to the passage of time, toestablish what caused the marks on their bodies or when or how they hadbeen sustained.The defendants were initially charged by the Supreme State SecurityProsecution with illegally collecting money to send in support of thePalestinian intifada (uprising) and to Chechens fighting Russian forces in2001. After the attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001, additional andmore serious charges were brought, including seeking to topple theEgyptian government and to assassinate top government officials,premeditated sabotage and destruction, threatening peace and publicsecurity and possessing firearms, ammunition and explosives withoutlicense. On 12 October 2001, President Mubarak issued a decree referringthe case to a military court.80On 9 September 2002, the court sentenced 51 of the defendants to prisonterms of between two and 15 years, and acquitted 43 others, including oneof the seven men tried in his absence. Those sentenced included students,former government officials, a Yemeni national, three men from theRussian Republic of Dagestan, and three Egyptians with dual nationality.The sentences were ratified by the President on 17 October 2002, renderingthem final.Some of the 43 who were acquitted were not released but continued tobe detained under orders issued by the Interior Minister. Among them wasFawzi al-Said, then imam of Tawhid Mosque at Ramsis Square in Cairo. Hewas reportedly released in April 2005.
EMERGENCY COURT:TAWHID WAL JIHAD TRIALA trial before the (Emergency) Supreme State Security Court in Ismailiaof three alleged members of Tawhid wal Jihad (Unity and Holy War)charged in connection with the October 2004 bomb attacks in Taba andNuweiba began on 2 July 2005 – a session observed by AmnestyInternational delegates. Muhammed Abdallah Rabaa, a 41-year-oldowner of a metal workshop, and Muhammed Gayiz Sabbah, a 25-year-old employee of an irrigation company, were in the dock. The thirddefendant, Muhammed Ahmed Saleh Falifel, was at liberty at the timeand was subsequently killed during an armed confrontation with thepolice.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 30
30
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
In March 2006, after investigations in connection with bomb attacks inSharm al-Sheikh in July 2005, 13 other people became co-defendants in thetrial. One of the 13, who was on the run from the police at the time, was alsosubsequently killed during an armed confrontation with the police,according to reports.Muhammed Abdallah Rabaa and Muhammed Gayiz Sabbah werearrested on 22 and 23 October 2004 respectively at their homes in al-‘Arish.The men’s families were not told of the reason for the arrests or where themen were being detained. They repeatedly sought information from the SSIoffice in al-‘Arish and the office of the Public Prosecutor, but withoutresponse. When the families discovered the men’s whereabouts throughreleased detainees, they were not allowed to visit them. Subsequently,family visits were only permitted on major national holidays.During the initial trial session on 2 July 2005, relatives of bothdefendants were not allowed inside the courtroom. However, the courtordered that the defendants be allowed family visits, and shortlyafterwards Muhammed Abdallah Rabaa had his first official visit from hisfamily, 10 months after his arrest.In court, Muhammed Abdallah Rabaa and Muhammed Gayiz Sabbahdenied the charges against them and stated that they had been forced toconfess under torture while in the custody of the SSI. On the request of theirlawyers, the court referred them for medical examination. A subsequentreport, presented by the prosecution during the trial session of 14 August2005, dismissed their allegations on the grounds that the medicalexamination had found no forensic evidence of torture.Muhammed Abdallah Rabaa and Muhammed Gayiz Sabbah had nolegal assistance during the whole of their pre-trial detention. The first timethey had access to their lawyers was when they were brought into thecourtroom, a few minutes before the opening of the initial trial session.The two men later told their lawyers that they had requested a medicalexamination and legal assistance when they had been initially broughtbefore the Public Prosecutor for interrogation, but their requests weredenied. No record of this was made in the case files.Defence lawyers told Amnesty International that they asked the PublicProsecutor to allow them to be present when the suspects came before him.Their request was rejected and only part of their communication with theoffice of the Public Prosecutor was included in the case files. Moreover, thedefendants were not informed that lawyers had offered to defend them.When Usama ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nakhlawi and Mustafa HusseinMuhammed, two of the 13 new co-defendants, were brought to trial inMarch 2006, they declared in court that they had been blindfolded, held insecret detention and tortured to force them to confess. In May 2006 MustafaHussein Muhammed exposed his back to the court to show multiple
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 31
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
31
bruises and burn marks. Forensic reports ordered by the court wereinconclusive and on that basis the court did not order further investigationinto their allegations of torture.In September 2006, the court sentenced Muhammed Gayiz Sabbah,Usama ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nakhlawi and Yunis Muhammed Abu Gareer todeath and submitted the verdict to the office of the Mufti (supremereligious authority) for approval.81On 30 November 2006, after thatapproval had been given, the court confirmed the sentences. The otherdefendants were sentenced to between life and five years’ imprisonment.Muhammed Abdallah Rabaa was sentence to life imprisonment.In December 2006, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’Rights requested the government of Egypt to stay the execution of the threemen sentenced to death, pending a consideration of a complaint submittedto it in a session in 2007.82The three men continue to be held in Tora Prison.
Death penalty
M
any people convicted of terrorism-related offences have been sentenced to deathfollowing unfair trials, including before military courts.
Under international human rights law, those suspected of or charged with crimes punishableby death are entitled to the strictest observance of all fair trial guarantees at all stages of the legalproceedings, including during the investigation stage, as well as to certain additional safeguards.For example, the UN Human Rights Committee has stated that “the death penalty should bequite an exceptional measure” and should only be handed down after a trial that observes all theprocedural guarantees for a fair hearing.83Any death sentence imposed after a trial that does notconform to all fair trial guarantees would amount to arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. Asthis report has shown, the Egyptian authorities have failed to ensure that the key safeguards areapplied during the various stages of investigations and trials in capital cases.Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases, without exception, as aviolation of the right to life and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.Crimes punishable by death in Egypt include offences under the existing “anti-terrorism”legislation; premeditated murder; arson attacks leading to death; rape and drug-related offences.84Over the past decade, death sentences have been pronounced for all the above-mentionedoffences. Death sentences are passed by exceptional courts as well as by criminal courts.Since the introduction of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the President’s referral of civilians tomilitary justice, military and emergency courts have sentenced some 137 people to death, 94 ofthem by military courts (including 13 in absentia) in connection with charges of “terrorism”.85Atleast 67 of the death sentences passed by military courts are known to have been carried out.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 32
32
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
5. Unlawful transfers totorture: five cases
t is not clear how many people suspected of terrorist offences or terrorist links by the Egyptianor the US authorities have been returned to Egypt since 11 September 2001. What is clear,however, is that those known to have been unlawfully returned have suffered a wide range ofhuman rights violations, including enforced disappearance, torture and other ill-treatment. Thevictims have been Egyptian nationals, Egyptians with dual nationality, and foreign nationals.Most of the detainees in this category who have been able to speak about their experiencessay that upon arrival at Cairo airport, they were handcuffed, blindfolded and taken to a secretdetention facility believed to be run by the General Intelligence. They were held thereincommunicado for weeks or months before being transferred to SSI premises and later toprison. Throughout their entire detention, they were beyond the protection of the law. All allegethat they were tortured while in Egypt, but none of their allegations is known to have beeninvestigated by the Egyptian authorities.The Egyptian authorities have also unlawfully transferred prisoners to countries where theywere at clear risk of torture and other serious human rights violations.
I
Abdul Rahman Muhammad Nasir Qasim al-Yaf’i
A
bdul Rahman Muhammad Nasir Qasim al-Yaf’i, a Yemeni national now aged 38, spoke toAmnesty International in February 2006 about his unlawful transfer from Egypt to Jordanin 2001. As with most of the other unlawfully transferred people interviewed by AmnestyInternational, his interrogations did not appear aimed at investigating a specific criminal offence,but at gathering intelligence about the activities of others. It appears that he was held formonths simply on the basis of his admission that he had visited Afghanistan.
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 33
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
33
Abdul Rahman al-Yaf’i, who lives in Sana’a in Yemen with his wife and children, said that hetook his aunt and brother to Cairo in Egypt for medical treatment in October 2000. When he toldairport immigration officials, in response to a question, that he had visited Afghanistan 10 yearsearlier, they detained him at the airport for about 13 hours and then said he had to return for hispassport. When he came back for the passport two days later, an Egyptian policeman handcuffedand blindfolded him, then took him to a building where he was put in a cell so small that hecould not stand upright. When he asked why they were holding him, he said he was told “we justwant some general information”.After some hours, he was taken for interrogation. He said his interrogators began calling himnames and making him stand up and sit down over and over again. They repeatedly askedhim about where he had visited in Afghanistan and whom he had met. He was also questionedabout bombings in Kenya, Tanzania and Saudi Arabia. When he could not answer, he saidthey attempted to strangle him, all the while insulting his parents, wife and religion. He wasinterrogated like this three times a day. “They accused me of everything that ever happened inthe world… perhaps it is the price you have to pay for having been in Afghanistan”. They askedhim to work with them, and offered to put his aunt and brother in the “finest hospitals in Cairo”.He refused, and they told him he would be turned over to the USA.After four days, Egyptian officials returned him to the airport, where they took him throughthe VIP entrance and straight to a waiting plane. The plane was “full of military, you couldfeel the presence of military even if it was a civilian plane.” Abdul Rahman al-Yaf’i said that hekept asking what was happening to him and where he was going, but eventually “stoppedasking questions because there were no answers”. He said he was surprised when the planetook him to Amman airport in Jordan. There, his guards handed him over to Jordanian securityofficials.In Jordan, he said, he was tortured regularly during interrogation in the first week or two, andless often after that. Abdul Rahman al-Yaf’i said that about twice a month, when delegates fromthe International Committee of the Red Cross visited the detention centre, he and dozens ofother detainees were hidden in underground cells, where prisoners wrote their names on thewalls. He was returned in March 2001 to Yemen, where he was detained for nearly two monthsand then released without charge.
Mamdouh Habib
M
amdouh Habib, an Australian national of Egyptian origin, told Amnesty International thaton 5 October 2001 he was arrested in Pakistan and detained there for nearly a month,during which he was beaten and threatened in order to make him sign a confession. He wasthen handed over to around 15 US officials, stripped of his clothes, photographed, sedated andflown to Egypt, where he was held for about six months before being taken to Afghanistan, thenGuantánamo Bay. He was released without charge in January 2005.During the flight to Egypt from Pakistan, he said, Egyptian security officers intentionallyprevented him from sleeping. Upon arrival at Cairo airport, he was handcuffed, blindfolded andtaken to a building surrounded by high walls. The car drove for about 10 to 15 minutes before itdescended into what appeared to be an underground location inside the building. He wasstripped of his clothes, photographed and put in a room. A doctor checked his heart prior to hisinterrogation.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 34
34
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
He said he was visited by two Egyptian high security officers and asked to co-operate andconfess that he was planning to hijack a plane to commit terrorist acts. When he refused to co-operate, he was drugged and put in a tiny cell with a dim amber light and a hole in the ceilingthrough which the outside could not be seen.During interrogation, he said, he was hung from hooks in the ceiling, beaten, given electricshocks and threatened with rape and death and the death of his relatives. He also reported thathe was forced into torture chambers, one of which was filled with water so high that he had tostand on tiptoe for hours in order not to drown. A second chamber had a very low ceiling andheld two feet of water, forcing him to maintain a painful stoop. A third had a few inches of waterand an electric generator which his captors said would electrocute him.Under such conditions he confessed that he had helped train the attackers of 11 September2001 in martial arts, a confession he later withdrew.He reported that the systematic use of drugs and electric shocks temporarily paralysed theleft side of his body. He was bleeding from his eyes and ears, and often urinated blood. Due tohis deteriorating health, he was transferred to a room on a higher floor where he was seenregularly by a doctor, apparently to treat him before his release.He was then told by the Egyptian security officers that he was no longer needed in Egypt.Early one morning, he was blindfolded, chained, had his mouth and eyes covered with tape, andwas put in a van that took him to the airport. In a second van at the airport, a security officerfilmed Mamdouh Habib as he was stripped, had the tape removed from his face and mouth, andwas photographed before being blindfolded, gagged and put on an aircraft.From Egypt, Mamdouh Habib was flown to Afghanistan, and from there to Guantánamo Bay,where was detained for almost three years. He told Amnesty International that at every stage ofhis detention he endured physical and psychological torture and other ill-treatment, rangingfrom a kick “that nearly killed me” to electric shocks and threats that he would never see hisfamily again.
Ahmed Agiza and Muhammed El-Zariwo Egyptian nationals, Muhammed Muhammed Suleiman Ibrahim El-Zari and AhmedHussein Mustafa Kamil Agiza, were unlawfully returned from Sweden to Egypt on 18December 2001. Muhammed El-Zari was released without charge in October 2003 after nearlytwo years in detention without charge or trial. Ahmed Agiza was sentenced to 25 years’imprisonment on 27 April 2004 after an unfair trial before a military court. The sentence wasreduced to 15 years by President Mubarak in June 2004.Prior to returning the two men to Egypt, the Swedish authorities obtained assurances fromthe Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or otherwise ill-treated, orsentenced to death in Egypt. However, both men report that on their return they were heldincommunicado for more than a month and tortured.Ahmed Agiza told relatives that he was tortured with electric shocks, placed in solitaryconfinement in harsh conditions, and threatened that his wife and mother would be sexuallyassaulted in his presence. In July and December 2004, the Egyptian authorities reportedly
T
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 35
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
35
dismissed as unfounded the torture allegations of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammed El-Zari,referring to an Egyptian investigation about which no details were provided.Further detailed information on Ahmed Agiza’s treatment emerged in 2003, mainly through acomplaint against Sweden submitted to the UN Committee against Torture on 25 January 2003.The Committee found that Sweden had violated the Convention against Torture by returninghim to a country where there was a risk of torture.86Muhammed El-Zari said that he was interrogated under torture, including by having electricshocks applied to his genitals, nipples and ears. He stated that his torture was monitored bymedical doctors who made sure that it would not leave visible scars. He said that eventually hewas forced to confess to crimes that he had not committed. Further detailed information on histreatment emerged in November 2006, mainly through a complaint against Sweden submittedto the UN Human Rights Committee in July 2005. The Committee also found that Sweden hadviolated the ICCPR.87
Ahmad Abu al-Maati
A
hmad Abu al-Maati, a truck driver and Canadian citizen of Egyptian origin, was arrested inSyria on 12 November 2001. He says he was held at the Palestine Branch of Syrian militaryintelligence for 12 weeks and tortured.According to his testimony, on 25 January 2002 he was hooded, handcuffed and taken by carto a waiting plane that took him to Egypt. Still blindfolded and handcuffed, he was moved to avan that drove him to the General Intelligence building in Cairo. His blindfold was only taken offin order to photograph him. Someone, presumably a doctor, checked his blood pressure andpulse. Then he was taken to the interrogation room where he was beaten all over his body. Hewas threatened with rape and the rape of his sister, who lives in Egypt and whom his torturersclaimed was in the room next to him. During all the interrogation sessions, he was keptblindfolded, with his hands handcuffed behind his back, causing a lot of pain to his shoulders. Hewas beaten and kicked, and forced to sign a confession stating that he had deliberatelydestroyed his Canadian passport. He was held at the General Intelligence building for four and ahalf months.In June 2002, he was transferred to the SSI branch in Nasr City. He was put in a cell (1.5m x2m). He was blindfolded and handcuffed all the time. His cuffs were moved to the front onlywhen he was given food or allowed to go to the toilet. He was interrogated for more than 10hours at a time. During interrogation, he was tortured, including with electric shocks to hishands, shoulders, legs, stomach and genitals.About six weeks later he was taken to the SSI headquarters in Lazoghly Square, where hespent a further two weeks blindfolded and handcuffed in a side hallway with other prisoners.Then he had his blindfold and handcuffs removed and was put in a crowded cell. This was thefirst time he had any contact with other prisoners. At the end of July 2002, he was taken to ToraPrison, where he was detained under orders issued by the Ministry of Interior under emergencylegislation.On 12 August 2002, he was visited by Canadian consular officials in the presence of SSIofficers. He told them he had been tortured and forced to sign false confessions but was then
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 36
36
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
silenced by an Egyptian official. The following month he was transferred to Abu Zaabal Prisonwhere he was held in solitary confinement for two weeks.On 15 October, Ahmad Abu al-Maati received his first release order from an emergency court.However, he was taken to the SSI headquarters in Lazoghly Square and detained there for fivedays before being returned to Abu Zaabal Prison with a new detention order. On 3 November2002, he received a second release order but was again taken to Lazoghly Square for a few daysbefore being issued with a new detention order and returned to Abu Zaabal Prison. At the end ofNovember 2002, he was transferred to Tora Prison. He was then taken to the SSI Nasr City branchwhere he was placed in solitary confinement, interrogated and tortured, including with electricshocks.Ahmad Abu al-Maati was transferred several times between Tora Prison, Abu Zaabal Prisonand the SSI Nasr City branch before the Minister of Interior ordered his release on 11 January2004. He was able to return to Canada in March 2004.
Abu Omar
O
n 17 February 2003, Usama Mostafa Hassan Nasr, an Egyptian national known as Abu Omar,was abducted in Milan, Italy, and then transferred to Cairo on a plane believed to have beenchartered by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).After his arrival in Cairo, Abu Omar’s fate and whereabouts were unknown for 14 months. Hewas released in late April 2004 and instructed not to disclose what had been done to him. Hewas rearrested after 23 days because he phoned relatives and friends in Italy and told them ofthe torture and ill-treatment he was subjected to during these 14 months. He was kept in prisonuntil his unexpected released, without charge, on 11 February 2007.Amnesty International delegates met him at his home in Alexandria two months later and hedescribed his abduction, transferral to Cairo, imprisonment in Egypt, and his torture and ill-treatment throughout.He said that on 17 February 2003 at noon, while on his way to a mosque, he was stopped bya man who showed him his card from a distance “as they do in movies”. The man said he wasfrom the police and asked him for his residence permit. The police officer then made somephone calls giving Abu Omar’s details. Abu Omar said he was suddenly lifted off the ground andpushed into a white van and beaten on his stomach and all over his body so that he urinatedinvoluntarily. He was hooded and had his hands and feet tied. He showed Amnesty Internationala scar on his knee that he said was caused by the injuries he sustained when he was pushed intothe van.Abu Omar said that when his abductors saw foam coming from his mouth, they tore off hisclothes and gave him a heart massage. One of them removed the hood and looked into his eyeswith a small torch “as doctors do”. When they saw that he was still alive, they put the hood backand left him on the floor of the van.After a drive of about four hours, he was put in a different car and driven to an airport. Hesaid he had his clothes cut off and hood removed by about seven or eight people, wasphotographed and had new plastic bindings put on his hands and feet. Tape was also put over
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 37
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
37
his face with holes by the nose and month to allow him to breathe. He was also given a thinuniform to wear.He said that on his arrival in Cairo, he was blindfolded by Egyptian security officials anddriven to General Intelligence. He said that after he had refused the demands of two seniorEgyptian officials to work as an informant in Italy for the Egyptian secret services, he was torturedand kept in the premises of General Intelligence for about seven months.Abu Omar said that he was then transferred to SSI offices where he stayed for a further sevenmonths, during which he was also tortured, including with electric shocks to sensitive areas ofhis body. He also reported that he was tortured using methods his torturers termed the “bride”and the “mattress” (see below). He was interrogated about a visit he had made to Afghanistanand alleged links to al-Qa’ida, and tortured to make him confess that he had returned voluntarilyto Egypt on board an Egypt Air flight.Just over a year before Abu Omar’s release, on 5 January 2006, an official from Egypt’s InteriorMinistry denied the torture allegations made by Abu Omar and said that he had been detainedfor security reasons as one of the leaders of the Egyptian Islamist Jihad group. The official, whowas responding to international reports about Egypt’s co-operation with US intelligenceagencies in torturing individuals suspected of terrorism, added that Abu Omar had returned toEgypt voluntarily because “he was tired of running away”. In September 2006, AmnestyInternational’s Secretary-General raised the case of Abu Omar directly with the Minister ofInterior, Habib El Adly, who said that the Egyptian authorities did not have any information aboutAbu Omar’s whereabouts.In July and December 2005, the Italian authorities issued warrants for the arrest of 22 CIAagents allegedly involved in the abduction of Abu Omar.88Following a request by the Italianprosecutor investigating the abduction, Abu Omar was brought before the Public Prosecutor inCairo on 28 March 2006 to be questioned about his abduction. Abu Omar reportedly refused tobe interrogated in the absence of his lawyer. He was then returned to Tora Prison. He appearedbefore the Public Prosecutor again on 6 April and described his abduction and unlawful transferto Egypt by US intelligence agents. This was the first time since his abduction from Italy that hewas allowed to have a lawyer with him during interrogation. He reportedly complained abouthaving been tortured by the SSI upon his return to Egypt and said that he had been held insolitary confinement.The Public Prosecutor gave no indication that the Egyptian authorities had investigated AbuOmar’s allegations of torture and other ill-treatment. Abu Omar was held in prolonged solitaryconfinement following orders from the Interior Ministry under emergency legislation, andreportedly suffered bad health. He tried three times to commit suicide and staged several hungerstrikes to protest against his continued detention despite having received at least 16 releaseorders from emergency courts.Abu Omar’s re-arrest in May 2004 was carried out under emergency legislation at his home inAlexandria. He was kept in the SSI branch in Nasr City for almost a month before beingtransferred to Tora Prison where he was kept for four months with no access to his family orlawyer. His relatives were only allowed to visit him when he was transferred to DamanhourPrison, near Alexandria. Three days after their visit on 21 February 2005, his relatives returned tothe prison to be informed that he had been transferred to Tora Prison. His relatives were not ableto see him again until October 2005. After this visit, they had no direct contact with him until 24
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 38
38
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
August 2006; all their contacts during this period were through the office of the PublicProsecutor and, after April 2006, via his lawyer. Although visits to him by his relatives were on aregular basis afterwards, they were sometimes restricted due to international media interest inhis case.
ABU OMAR’S TESTIMONYAmnesty International obtained a copy of the 11-page undated,handwritten account, which the Italian prosecutor confirmed as that of AbuOmar.89During Amnesty International’s interview with Abu Omar inMarch 2007, he said that his original letter was 16 pages long; the missingfive pages covered his ill-treatment in prison after his rearrest.The letter, which was smuggled out of Tora Prison, gives a graphicaccount of the torture Abu Omar says he suffered first in the building of theEgyptian Military Security Intelligence and then in the offices of the SSI.“Then they presented me with some food and about an hour later theyopened the cell door and blindfolded me and tied my hands and took meto an office and the interrogations and torture began, they removed all myclothes and removed the binds on my hands and replaced them with ... twobinds on my hands behind my back and one bind which they tied aroundone foot so that I was standing on one foot and I would fall to the floornaked as they laughed and lifted me back up and again and again and theelectric shocks began as well as the hand beatings and the threats to rapeme if I refused to talk and if I held back anything I knew…“The interrogation with me lasted a complete seven months... Sevenmonths passed as if seven years. I experienced pain and torture andreading papers and magazines was completely prohibited as well as radioand television or seeing family members, everything was prohibited, anunbearable hell...“At the beginning of the interrogation process, the guard opens my celldoor and makes sure to blindfold me tightly and changes the position ofmy bound hands to behind my back out of fear that I would remove theblindfold and witness the officer that is interrogating and torturing me. Myfeet remain bound and then I’m dragged to the interrogation rooms. Theythen remove all my clothes (naked as the day my mother gave birth to me)and they let me into where the interrogators are who order them to playwith my genitals in order to humiliate me and then the brutal torturebegins...“I was exposed to all forms of crucifixion. They crucified me on a metaldoor, and on a wooden apparatus which they call ‘El Arousa’ or ‘the bride’hands up high, behind my back, to the sides as well as the feet tightlytogether and spread apart and torture during crucifixion by means ofelectric shocks and by being kicked and beaten with electric cables, waterhoses and whipped…
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 39
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
39
“I underwent torture through what they call ‘the mattress’ and it is amattress that is placed on the tiled floor of the torture chamber and it is wetdown with water and attached to electricity. My hands were tied behindmy back and so were my feet and someone sat on a wooden chair betweenmy shoulder blades and another sat on a wooden chair between my legsand the electricity was switched on and I find myself raised from thestrength of the electricity that is touching the water but the wooden chairsare keeping me from rising high and then the electricity is switched off andthe interrogator tortures me by electric shocks to my genitals while cursingme and telling, ‘Let Italy be of benefit to you’…“I was placed near the torture chambers for long periods of time to hearthe screams of the tortured and their moans and their howls so that I wouldcollapse psychologically and sure enough I experienced episodes ofepilepsy and passing out.“I was sexually abused and sodomized twice and this was the worstthing that I went through for signs of physical torture eventually go awayand the pain goes away but the psychological repercussion and thebitterness and scandal of sexual violation remain. This sexual violationoccurred twice where my hands were restrained behind my back and sowere my feet and they lay me on my stomach, naked, and someone lay ontop of me and began to try to rape me and I screamed so hard and so loudthat I passed out and I don’t know whether he raped me or he was justintimidating and threatening.”
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 40
40
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
6. Recommendations
mnesty International calls on the Egyptian authorities to repeal all provisions of theemergency legislation that allow for human rights violations, including those exceptionalprovisions that have been reinstated into normal law, and to ensure that the planned new anti-terrorism law complies fully with international human rights law and standards. In particular, theEgyptian government should:
A
Condemn torture and other ill-treatmentPublicly condemn torture and other ill-treatment; ensure that these practices cease; andmake clear to all officers involved in arrest, detention and interrogation, in particularthose of the SSI and General Intelligence, that torture and other ill-treatment will not betolerated under any circumstances.
End incommunicado and secret detentionAbolish incommunicado detention and ensure that detainees have immediate access –by law and in practice – to the outside world, in particular their lawyers and families, aswell as independent medical care.End secret detention in SSI and any other premises, where detainees are at riskof torture or other ill-treatment and where detention conditions may inthemselves constitute a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment orpunishment.
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 41
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
41
Publish up-to-date lists of all places of detention in a form that is readily accessible tolawyers and members of the public.Establish and maintain a central register to ensure that all detainees can be promptlytraced; and bring appropriate sanctions against officers responsible for the unlawfuldetention of detainees, including failure to keep proper records of detainees.Make public the names of all detainees transferred to Egyptian custody since 2001, thecircumstances of their transfer, their current whereabouts and the reasons for theircontinued detention and supply their full details to their families and lawyers and to theInternational Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).Allow the Public Prosecution to inspect all detention places, including those used by theSSI.Allow regular, unannounced, independent and unrestricted inspections by national andinternational independent expert bodies to all places where people are or may bedeprived of their liberty.
End administrative detentionEnd the use of administrative detention.Pending repeal of the Emergency Law, review and revise its provisions relating to courtreview of the legality of detention in order to ensure that anyone detained by order ofthe Interior Minister appears in a court without delay after being taken into custody; thepower of this court to order the release of individuals who are unlawfully detainedshould not be liable to be overturned by any executive official.Immediately release all those who are detained under the Emergency Law for whomrelease orders have been issued by a competent court.
Strengthen protection during detentionEnsure that all officers carrying out arrests identify themselves to those arrested andnotify them in writing of the reasons for the arrest, the authority ordering the arrest, andthe place where they will be detained.Ensure that the families of those detained are informed promptly of the place ofdetention of their relatives and any subsequent changes to the place of detention.Allow detainees to be examined by an independent doctor as soon as they are arrestedand after each period of questioning, and monitor the quality of medical reporting.Ensure that those making a complaint of torture or other ill-treatment and anywitnesses to torture or other ill-treatment are adequately safeguarded against possiblereprisals, intimidation or harassment, and take firm action if such harassment or otherabuses takes place.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 42
42
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
Modify the definition of the crime of torture in Egyptian law to make it comply fullywith the definition in Article 1(1) of the UN Convention against Torture. All forms ofcruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should be explicitly prohibited. Itshould be made clear that the prohibition is absolute and must not be suspendedunder any circumstances, including during a state of war or other public emergency.Keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practiceswith a view to preventing any cases of torture or ill-treatment, in line with theprovisions of the UN Convention against Torture.
Address unfair trials and the death penaltyStop referring civilians to military courts and halt immediately all pending trials ofcivilians in military courts, and transfer the cases to civilian courts for a new trial.Order retrials, in proceedings that meet international fair trial standards, for all thoseconvicted on the basis of evidence obtained or suspected to have been obtained bymeans of torture or other ill-treatment.Commute all death sentences and announce a moratorium on the death penalty with aview to abolishing it.
Safeguard against unlawful transfersDo not transfer to the custody of another state anyone suspected or accused of securityoffences unless the transfer is carried out under judicial supervision and in fullobservance of due legal process.Ensure that anyone in Egypt facing transfer has the right to challenge its legality beforean independent tribunal, and has access to an independent lawyer and an effectiveright of appeal.Do not receive into custody anyone suspected or accused of security offences unlessthe transfer is carried out under judicial supervision and in full observance of due legalprocess.Bring all such detainees before a judicial authority without delay after being handedover to Egyptian custody.Ensure that detainees have prompt access to legal counsel and to family members, andthat lawyers and family members are kept informed of the detainees’ whereabouts.Ensure that detainees who are foreign nationals have, in addition, access to diplomaticor other representatives of their country of nationality or former habitual residence.Co-operate fully with investigations in other states looking into unlawful transfers,under the US-led “war on terror” of individuals suspected of links to terrorist,organizations or groups.
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 43
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
43
End impunityEnsure that all allegations of torture or other ill-treatment are investigated promptly,thoroughly and impartially and that officials responsible for the torture or other ill-treatment of prisoners are brought to justice, and that victims receive full reparation.Take all appropriate criminal or administrative measures against officials who fail tocomply with safeguards against human rights abuses.
Co-operate with the UN to end tortureImplement recommendations by UN treaty bodies and special procedures.Issue a standing invitation to all UN human rights experts, and facilitate immediatelythe visit requested by the UN Special Rapporteurs, especially the UN Special Rapporteuron torture and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of humanrights while countering terrorism.Submit the overdue reports to the UN Human Rights Committee and CommitteeAgainst Torture as a matter of priority.Ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel,Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 44
44
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
AppendixAmnesty International’s 12-Point Programme forthe Prevention of TortureThis 12-point programme sets outmeasures to prevent the torture andother ill-treatment of people who arein governmental custody orotherwise in the hands of agents ofthe state. It was first adopted byAmnesty International in 1984,revised in October 2000 and again inApril 2005. Amnesty Internationalholds governments to theirinternational obligations to preventand punish torture and other ill-treatment, whether committed byagents of the state or by otherindividuals. Amnesty Internationalalso opposes torture and other ill-treatment by armed political groups.
orture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (other ill-treatment)are violations of human rights, condemned by the international community as an offence tohuman dignity and prohibited in all circumstances under international law. Yet they happen dailyand across the globe. Immediate steps are needed to confront these abuses wherever they occurand to eradicate them. Amnesty International calls on all governments to implement thefollowing 12-point programme and invites concerned individuals and organizations to ensurethat they do so. Amnesty International believes that the implementation of these measures is apositive indication of a government’s commitment to end torture and other ill-treatment and towork for their eradication worldwide.
T
1. Condemn torture and other ill-treatment
The highest authorities of every country should demonstrate their total opposition to torture andother ill-treatment. They should condemn these practices unreservedly whenever they occur.They should make clear to all members of the police, military and other security forces thattorture and other ill-treatment will never be tolerated.2. Ensure access to prisoners
Torture and other ill-treatment often take place while prisoners are held incommunicado –unable to contact people outside who could help them or find out what is happening to them.The practice of incommunicado detention should be ended. Governments should ensure that allprisoners are brought before an independent judicial authority without delay after being takeninto custody. Prisoners should have access to relatives, lawyers and doctors without delay andregularly thereafter.3. No secret detention
In some countries torture and other ill-treatment take place in secret locations, often after thevictims are made to “disappear”. Governments should ensure that prisoners are held only inofficially recognized places of detention and that accurate information about their arrest andwhereabouts is made available immediately to relatives, lawyers, the courts, and others with alegitimate interest, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Effective judicialremedies should be available at all times to enable relatives and lawyers to find out immediatelywhere a prisoner is held and under what authority, and to ensure the prisoner’s safety.AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 45
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
45
4. Provide safeguards during detention and
interrogation
All prisoners should be immediately informed of their rights. These include the right to lodgecomplaints about their treatment and to have a judge rule without delay on the lawfulness oftheir detention. Judges should investigate any evidence of torture or other ill-treatment andorder release if the detention is unlawful. A lawyer should be present during interrogations.Governments should ensure that conditions of detention conform to international standards forthe treatment of prisoners and take into account the needs of members of particularlyvulnerable groups. The authorities responsible for detention should be separate from those incharge of interrogation. There should be regular, independent, unannounced and unrestrictedvisits of inspection to all places of detention.5. Prohibit torture and other ill-treatment in law
Governments should adopt laws for the prohibition and prevention of torture and other ill-treatment incorporating the main elements of the UN Convention against Torture and OtherCruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) and otherrelevant international standards. All judicial and administrative corporal punishments should beabolished. The prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the essential safeguards for theirprevention must not be suspended under any circumstances, including states of war or otherpublic emergency.6. Investigate
All complaints and reports of torture or other ill-treatment should be promptly, impartially andeffectively investigated by a body independent of the alleged perpetrators. The scope, methodsand findings of such investigations should be made public. Officials suspected of committingtorture or other ill-treatment should be suspended from active duty during the investigation.Complainants, witnesses and others at risk should be protected from intimidation and reprisals.7. Prosecute
Those responsible for torture or other ill-treatment should be brought to justice. This principleapplies wherever those suspected of these crimes happen to be, whatever their nationality orposition, regardless of where the crime was committed and the nationality of the victims, and nomatter how much time has elapsed since the commission of the crime. Governments shouldexercise universal jurisdiction over those suspected of these crimes, extradite them, or surrenderthem to an international criminal court, and cooperate in such criminal proceedings. Trials shouldbe fair. An order from a superior officer should never be accepted as a justification for torture orill-treatment.8. No use of statements extracted under torture or other
ill-treatment
Governments should ensure that statements and other evidence obtained through torture orother ill-treatment may not be invoked in any proceedings, except against a person accused oftorture or other ill-treatment.Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 46
46
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
9. Provide effective training
It should be made clear during the training of all officials involved in the custody, interrogation ormedical care of prisoners that torture and other ill-treatment are criminal acts. Officials should beinstructed that they have the right and duty to refuse to obey any order to torture or carry outother ill-treatment.10. Provide reparation
Victims of torture or other ill-treatment and their dependants should be entitled to obtainprompt reparation from the state including restitution, fair and adequate financial compensationand appropriate medical care and rehabilitation.11. Ratify international treaties
All governments should ratify without reservations international treaties containing safeguardsagainst torture and other ill-treatment, including the International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights and its first Optional Protocol; and the UN Convention against Torture, with declarationsproviding for individual and inter-state complaints, and its Optional Protocol. Governmentsshould comply with the recommendations of international bodies and experts on the preventionof torture and other ill-treatment.12. Exercise international responsibility
Governments should use all available channels to intercede with the governments of countrieswhere torture or other ill-treatment are reported. They should ensure that transfers of trainingand equipment for military, security or police use do not facilitate torture or other ill-treatment.Governments must not forcibly return or transfer a person to a country where he or she wouldbe at risk of torture or other ill-treatment.AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 47
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
47
Endnotes
1The SSI is one of the three main securityagencies in Egypt; the others are the GeneralIntelligence (Mukhbarat), attached to thePresident, and the Military Intelligence of theMinistry of Defence. The SSI is under the directcontrol of the Minister of Interior. While allthree agencies could conduct investigationsinto matters of national security, the SSI is themain body responsible for investigatingmatters of domestic security. It also hasresponsibility for enforcing the state ofemergency. The Minister of Interior has controlover the paramilitary Central Security Forces(CSF) which maintains public order andsupports the SSI when conducting arrest.
5The first presidential decree was Decree 370of 1992 based on Article 6(2) of Law No. 25 of1966 (the Code of Military Justice). This Articlestipulates that “during a state of emergency,the President of the Republic has the right torefer to the military judiciary any crime whichis punishable under the Penal Code or underany other law”.
6For example,Egypt: Amnesty Internationalcondemns attacks against civilians in Taba(AIIndex: MDE 12/011/2004);Egypt: AmnestyInternational condemns attack against civilians inCairo(AI Index: MDE 12/017/2005);Egypt:Amnesty International condemns attack againstcivilians in Dahab(AI Index: MDE 12/006/2006).
2In May 1996 the UN Committee againstTorture issued a report summarizing theprocesses of a confidential inquiry carried outsince November 1991. It concluded that“torture is systematically practised by theSecurity Forces in Egypt, in particular by StateSecurity Intelligence...” UN Doc, Egypt,A/51/44, para. 220. (Inquiry under Article 20), 3May 1996.
7US Department of State, “Remarks withEgyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs AhmedMaher”, 26 September 2001, seehttp://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/5066.htm.
8Typically, terrorist suspects returned fromabroad are detained first in the GeneralIntelligence and later in various SSI detentionfacilities and prisons.
3In a statement to the Ministry of Interior, theEgyptian Organization for Human Rights(EOHR) said that up to 18,000 administrativedetainees are currently in Egyptian prisons. See“Statement to the Ministry of Interior”, EOHR,23 February 2006.
9“Egypt urges new UN chief to continue fightagainst terror”, AFP, 14 October 2006.
10The state of emergency was imposed in1967 because of the Arab-Israeli war that yearand was only lifted between May 1980 andOctober 1981. It was re-imposed on 6 October1981 following President Anwar al-Sadat’sassassination.
4See, for example, Amnesty International’sreportEgypt: Human rights abuses by armedgroups(AI Index: MDE 12/022/1998),September 1998.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 48
48
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
11Article 4 of the ICCPR states: “In time of publicemergency which threatens the life of the nationand the existence of which is officially proclaimed,the States Parties to the present Covenant maytake measures derogating from their obligationsunder the present Covenant to the extent strictlyrequired by the exigencies of the situation,provided that such measures are not inconsistentwith their other obligations under internationallaw and do not involve discrimination solely onthe ground of race, colour, sex, language, religionor social origin.”
application of the Constitution or of laws orregulations.”
17Law 95 of 2003 abolishing State SecurityCourts and amending certain provisions in thePenal Code and CCP.
18See Article 7bis of Law 105 of 1980establishing State Security Courts; this Articlewas added by the Anti-Terrorism Law of 1992.
19See Amnesty International,Egypt:Referendum must not be used to legitimize erosionof human rights(AI Index: MDE 12/009/2007);andEgypt: Proposed constitutional amendmentsgreatest erosion of human rights in 26 years(AI Index: MDE 12/008/2007).
12For more details, see section onadministrative detention below.
13Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the Emergency Law.14Article 12 of the Emergency Law. In March2007, President Mubarak proposed a law to setup an appeals court for suspects tried beforemilitary courts.
20See in particular Commission on HumanRights, Resolution 2003/68 of 25 April 2003,para. 3; Resolution 2004/87 of 21 April 2004,para. 1; and Resolution 2005/80 of 21 April2005, para. 1. Also UN General AssemblyResolution 57/219 of 18 December 2002, para. 1;Resolution 58/187 of 22 December 2003, para. 1;Resolution 59/191 of 20 December 2004, para. 1;and Resolution 60/158 of 16 December 2005,para. 1. Also UN Security Council Resolution1456 of 20 January 2003, para 6.
15UN Doc, CCPR/C/79/Add.23, 9 August 1993,para. 8. These Articles guarantee the right to life(Article 6), the right not to be subjected totorture or other ill-treatment (Article 7), the rightnot to be arbitrarily detained and deprived ofliberty (Article 9), the legality of the offence(that is, the requirement to limit both criminalliability and punishment to clear and preciseprovisions in the law that existed and wereapplicable at the time when the offence wascommitted, except in cases where a later lawimposes a lighter sentence) (Article 15).
21See World Summit Outcome, UN Doc.A/RES/60/1 of 16 September 2005.
22See report by the UN Independent Expert onthe Protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms While CounteringTerrorism, E/CN.4/2005/103, 7 February 2005,para. 33.
16Article 86 of the Egyptian Penal Code asamended by Law No. 97 of 1992 defines theoffence of “terrorism” to mean “any use offorce or violence or any threat or intimidationto which the perpetrator resorts in order tocarry out an individual or collective criminalplan aimed at disturbing the peace orjeopardizing the safety and security of societyand which is of such nature as to harm orcreate fear in persons or imperil their lives,freedoms or security; harm the environment;damage or take possession of communications;prevent or impede the public authorities in theperformance of their work; or thwart the
23See Amnesty International,The ArabConvention for the Suppression of Terrorism: aserious threat to human rights(AI Index: IOR51/001/2002), 9 January 2002, and InternationalCommission of Jurists,Terrorism and HumanRights: New Challenges and Old Dangers,March2003, pp. 61-65.
24Article 139 of the CCP and Article 71of the Egyptian Constitution. Similarprovisions are in Article 9(2) of the ICCPR.
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 49
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
49
25Law 157 of 1968 and its executive decrees.See National Council for Human Rights,Annual Report 2004/2005,p.295.
al-Siyassiya fi al-Tashri‘ al-Masri (Civil andPolitical Rights in Egyptian Legislation),p. 118.
37Amnesty International obtained information26National Council for Human Rights,AnnualReport 2004/2005,p.213.about these abuses directly from the victims ortheir written testimonies, or from reports bytheir relatives and lawyers and other sources.
27Human Rights Committee, Preliminaryobservations: Peru, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.67, 25 July 1996, paras 18 and 24. Report of theSpecial Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,inhuman or degrading treatment, UN Doc.E/CN.4/1995/434, para. 926(d).
38UN Doc, Communication No. 233/2003:Agiza v Sweden,CAT/C/34/D/233/2003(Jurisprudence), para. 13.4, 24 May 2005.
39In September 2005, the UK ambassador toEgypt reportedly asked the Egyptian NationalCouncil for Human Rights to guarantee therights of Egyptians upon their return from theUK and said that the UK government wantedto include in the “diplomatic assurance” a noteon the role of the Council in providingguarantees that the rights of individualsreturned to Egypt would be protected. TheCouncil reportedly rejected the proposal.
28Amnesty International and other humanrights groups had previously been told that thesix were returned to Egypt in 2004.
29“Former leader of Gihad joins initiative tostop violence in Egypt”,Al-Hayat,22 March2007.
30According to an official from the Ministryof Interior, the figure does not exceed 4,000detainees.31In September 2005, up to 2,000 prisonerswere released for health and humanitarianreasons, reportedly followingrecommendations by the government-sponsored human rights body, the NationalCouncil for Human Rights.
40UN Doc, Egypt, CCPR/CO/76/EGY/Add.3.Follow-up Response by State Party, 18November 2004.
41Muhammad Abdallah Raba’ wassubsequently sentenced to life imprisonmentby an emergency court in Ismailia inconnection with the Taba and Nuweibabombings (see Tawhid wal Jihad trial, p29).
32For more details on administrativedetention in Egypt, seeEgypt: Arbitrarydetention and torture under emergency powers(AIIndex: MDE 12/01/1989); andEgypt: Securitypolice detentions undermine the rule of law(AIIndex: MDE 12/01/1992).
42See Articles 126, 129 and 282 of the PenalCode.
43Torture is defined under the section of thePenal Code entitled “Coercion and ill-treatmentby civil servants against people” (Articles 126-132). The most severe penalties for torturers areup to 10 years’ imprisonment for anyone “whoordered or committed torture to force an accused tomake a confession”or, when the victim dies, to“thesame sentence stated for intentional killing”[which is up to the death penalty]. Torture,including death threats, can be punished byimprisonment under other provisions,including Article 282 of the Penal Code.However, this only applies when the persontortured has been arrested unlawfully, as
33UN Doc, General E/CN.4/1997/add.1, 29October 1996.
34Report of the Working Group on ArbitraryDetention, E/CN.4/2005/6, para. 77.
35Article 140 of the CCP and Article 79 of theLaw on Prison Regulations.
36Abdallah Khalil,al-Huquq al-Madaniyya wa
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 50
50
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
specified in Article 280 of the Penal Code, bysomeone purporting to be a police officer orwearing police uniform. Article 282 stipulates“Whoever arrests, confines or detains a personwithout an order from one of the concernedauthorities, and in other than the cases whereinthe law and statutes authorize the arrest of thesuspects, shall be punished with the detentionor a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds.”
(Article 30). In addition, the MilitaryProsecution has all the powers given to thePublic Prosecution, the examining judge andthose of the accusation chamber, as describedin the following section on Public Prosecution’sspecial powers.
51Articles 64-67 of the CCP.52These are defined in the Penal Code mainly
44Under the Convention against Torture “theterm ‘torture’ means any act by which severepain or suffering, whether physical or mental, isintentionally inflicted on a person for suchpurposes as obtaining from him or a thirdperson information or a confession, punishinghim for an act he or a third person hascommitted or is suspected of having committed,or intimidating or coercing him or a thirdperson, or for any reason based on discrim-ination of any kind, when such pain or sufferingis inflicted by or at the instigation of or with theconsent or acquiescence of a public official orother person acting in an official capacity.”
as crimes affecting national security inside oroutside the country, explosives andembezzlement of public funds.
53See Abdallah Khalil,Al-Huquq al-Madaniyyawa al-Siyassiya fi al-Tashri‘ al-Misri (Civil andPolitical Rights in Egyptian Legislation),p.569.
54This was done by virtue of Law 95 of 2003abolishing State Security Courts and amendingthe CCP.
55Article 206bis was added to the CCP byvirtue of Law 95 of 2003 abolishing StateSecurity Courts. It stipulates that “members ofthe public prosecution with at least the rank ofchief prosecutor, shall – in addition to thejurisdictions prescribed for public prosecution– have the power of the examining magistratein investigating the crimes prescribed in PartsI [crimes affecting national security fromoutside], II [crimes affecting national securityfrom inside the country], IIbis [explosives]and IV [embezzlement of public funds] ofbook II of the Penal Code. They shall, inaddition, have the power of the accusationchamber as prescribed in Article 143 of thepresent law, in investigating the crimesprescribed in Section 1 of Part II [terrorism]referred to earlier, provided that the[“precautionary”] detention period does notexceed 15 days at each [renewal] each time.”The reduction in the period of“precautionary” detention to 15 days (from 45days) was introduced by Law 145 of 2006amending the CCP.
45UN Doc. A/49/44, para. 90.46Article 2 of the Convention against Torture.47Human Rights Committee’s GeneralComment No. 20 on Article 7 of the ICCPR,para. 8.
48Article 40 of Egyptian Constitution andArticle 14(1) of the ICCPR.
49This is, for instance, the case of the Anti-Terrorism Law of 1992, which amended thePenal Code, and Law 95 of 2003, whichabolished State Security Courts and amendedthe CCP.
50The Code of Military Justice empowers theMilitary Prosecution to: investigate on its owna number of offences (offences covered byordinary law that could fall under the remit ofmilitary justice, all military offences covered byordinary law, and military offences referred toit by the military authorities) (Article 29); andinitiate and proceed with a criminal case
56These are Articles 51-54, 77, 84, 92,124, 125, 141 and 206, covering house search,interrogation in the presence of lawyers,
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 51
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
51
defence access to investigation documents,access to lawyers and case files, seizing materialand surveillance without permission from ajudge after looking at the case documents. SeeAbdallah Khalil,Al-Huquq al-Madaniyya wa al-Siyassiya fi al-Tashri‘ al-Masri (Civil and PoliticalRights in Egyptian Legislation),p.136.
67Article 15.68General Comment 20, para 12.69A/56/156. para.39(j).70Report on visit to Turkey, UN Doc,E/CN.4/1999/61/Add.1, para. 113(e).
57Guideline 10.71Article 14(1) of the ICCPR.58Article 9(3) of the ICCPR and Principle 37 ofthe UN Body of Principles for the Protection ofAll Persons under Any Form of Detention orImprisonment.
72Article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR.73Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR.74Article 14(5) of the ICCPR.75Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Emergency Law.76For more information on AmnestyInternational’s position on trials beforeemergency courts, seeEgypt: Arbitrary detentionand torture under emergency powers(AI Index:MDE 12/01/1989), pp 14-16.
59Article 9(4) of the ICCPR.60For example, Article 14 of the ICCPR.61Article 69 of the Constitution. Under Article124 of the CCP (as amended by Law 145 of2006): “the examining magistrate in criminalcases liable to imprisonment cannot interrogate asuspect or confront him with other suspects orwitnesses until the suspect’s lawyer has beeninvited to be present, except in cases offlagrantedilictoor where there is compelling reason tobelieve that evidence may be lost according towhat the examining magistrate states in thereport… If the suspect does not have a lawyer orhis lawyer did not come after being invited, theexamining magistrate must of his own initiativeappoint a lawyer for him.”
77Article 14(7) of the ICCPR states: “[n]o oneshall be liable to be tried or punished again foran offence for which he has already been finallyconvicted or acquitted in accordance with thelaw and penal procedure of each country.”
78UN Doc, CCPR/C/79/Add.23,para. 9, July 1993.
62See Articles 139 and 124.63“EOHR welcomes the decree of the PublicProsecutor to apply the right of the defencebefore the prosecutor”, EOHR, 19 May 2002.
79UN Doc, CCPR/CO/76/EGY, para. 16(b), 28November 2002.
80“Qararjumhuri bi-ihalati 83 irhabiyan misriyanwa ajnabiyan ila al-qadha’ al-askari”(“Presidentialdecision to refer 83 Egyptian and foreignterrorists to military justice”),Al-Ahram,14October 2001.
64Although the CCP authorizes the Public
Prosecution to prevent a detainee fromreceiving visits or mixing with other prisoners,Article 141 specifies that this should not affect81Before pronouncing a death sentence, courtsthe detainee’s right to have regular access to his have to submit their decision with the caseor her lawyer.documents to the Mufti, Egypt’s highestreligious authority, for his opinion. If he does notgive an answer within 10 days, the court may65UN Doc, CAT/C/34/Add.11, para. 108.pronounce the death sentence. However, theopinion of the Mufti is not legally binding.66Decree No.1221 of 2005.
Amnesty International April 2007
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
egypt06.qxp
05/04/2007
13:05
Page 52
52
EgyptSystematic abuses in the nameof security
82The complaint was submitted to theCommission by the Egyptian Initiative forPersonal Rights and the non-governmentalorganization INTERIGHTS.
86Agiza v. Sweden,Committee against Torture,Communication No. 233/2003, UN Doc,CAT/C/34/D/233/2003, 24 May 2005.
87Alzery v Sweden,Human Rights Committee,83General Comment No. 6 on the right to life,para. 7.Communication No. 1416/2005, UN Doc,CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005, 10 November 2006. El-Zari is Amnesty International’s chosentransliteration from Arabic; the UN HumanRights Committee uses Alzery.
84Egyptian legislation also provides for the
death penalty for other offences against theexternal security of the state, such as espionagein times of war. The Code of Military Justice lists88Arrest warrant of 20 July 2005, TribunaleOrdinario di Milano, Section XI Criminal Courta number of capital offences for servingmembers of the armed forces.as Review Judge, No. 1413/2005 RG TRD [53].
85Protecting Human Rights in the Fight AgainstTerrorism in Egypt,EOHR, 2004, Appendix 1.
89Translation by theChicago Tribune
AI Index: MDE 12/001/2007
Amnesty International April 2007
