Annual Report of The National Council for Human Rights

Cont. - Chapter Four

Grievances

The NCHR decided to create a committee to review complaints, bearing in mind that there are projects currently being reviewed in cooperation with the UNDP. Such projects have been approved by the EU for the establishment of a specialized Grievance Bureau that is both well-equipped and well-staffed, enabling it to better handle the complaints addressed to the NCHR.

After fulfilling the preconditions for its formation, approved on February 18, the NCHR Grievance Committee received 4,850 complaints from February 25 to December 31, 2004. Below is a review of these complaints, classified according to: the method of their delivery to the NCHR; their geographic distribution according to governorates; their specific distribution according to the rights which complainants claim to have been compromised or violated and the requests for reclaiming such rights and freedoms granted them by international agreements and conventions and national legislations regulating such rights and freedoms, and their chronological distribution according to date of their delivery:

1- Classification of Complaints according to their Method of Delivery to the NCHR:

The NCHR has made available several methods whereby individuals and civil society organizations may deliver their complaints concerning the compromising or violation of any of their rights as well as their demand to be granted any of their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Such methods include: mail, hand delivery at NCHR HQ, facsimile, and telegram. The following chart (Figure 1) shows the classification of complaints accordingly:

Figure (1)

Classification of Complaints according to their
    Means of Delivery to the NCHR

It is evident from the above figure that mail is the most preferable method used by complainants to deliver their complaints as it represents 54% of the total complaints received. In fact complainants seem unwilling to deliver their complaints by hand to the NCHR owing to: their detention; or the long distance between Cairo and their residence and consequent high travel and transportation expenses; or owing to fear of possible threats or danger against their lives or wellbeing in case of delivering their complaints in person at the NCHR's HQ.

Notwithstanding the previous merits of delivering complaints to the NCHR via mail, this method has its own demerits, e.g.: the delayed delivery experienced. Even the delivery of mail within Cairo takes from 5 to 8 days and from other governorates to Cairo from 7 to 10 days.

Furthermore, some complainants are unaware of the NCHR's accurate postal address, which has resulted in the delivery of some complaints to other organs, such as the Shoura Council, the Arab Organization for Human Rights, the Cairo Center for Human Rights, and the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. The time consumed for these complaints to be forwarded by such organs to the NCHR may extend the delay period to up to three whole weeks.

In addition, some complainants elaborate on the financial and immaterial effects entailed by what they claim to be violations of their rights, without relating specific details concerning such violations. The NCHR legal researchers receiving such a complaint should thereby contact the complainant in order to complete the missing information and explanations. This prolonged procedure consumes from 10 to 15 days.

Delivering complaints by hand at the NCHR's HQ, comes in second as a method of reporting complaints. The number of complaints hand-delivered to the NCHR reached 1,803 complaints, which represents 37.2% of the total complaints delivered to the NCHR. Most of the complaints delivered by this method were from individuals residing in Cairo since the distance to the NCHR's HQ is within their reach as well as the low cost of this method in comparison with other methods such as mail, facsimile, and telegram.

This is in addition to the preference of some complainants to visit the NCHR and deliver their complaints orally to the competent legal researcher in order to inquire about the NCHR's capability as to restoring their rights, as well as to inquire about the steps the NCHR will take to review his complaint and deliver due justice; or to learn about the authority the complainant should contact or the legal procedures he should take in case the NCHR does not have jurisdiction.

Furthermore, some illiterate individuals also prefer this method, especially since researchers and legal specialists are available to edit the content of verbal complaints in a direct and succinct manner to the complainant's satisfaction before his required signature.

Delivery of complaints via facsimile ranked third with regard to preference, as it represents 6.8% of the complaints delivered from the end of February to the end of December 2004.

However, despite the merits of this method, owing to the prompt delivery of complaints and accordingly the prompt review and forwarding thereof to the concerned authorities, it is still deemed costly to many.

For this reason, complainants sometimes ignore delivering a copy of relevant and supporting documents and instruments which confirm the seriousness of their complaint. The NCHR therefore has to contact the complainant, whether by telephone or mail, to request a copy of such documents and instruments. This, in turn, leads to further delay.

The delivery of complaints via telegram ranks fourth as it represents 1.7 percent. Those who used this method believed that it was the fastest of them all, which will in turn guarantee prompt action to end their pains.

Furthermore, owing to the high cost of this method, complainants are content with just giving a brief account of their trouble, without any details concerning the place or reason behind such trouble or the person/s responsible.

In spite of this, the NCHR promptly contacted the competent authorities concerning most of these complaints, to investigate the reasons behind such complainants claiming the violation or compromising of their rights, whether freedom or personal safety (such as detention, torture, and degradation at police stations), or religious freedom and the practice of religious rituals.

In most cases, the authorities contacted clarify other aspects and perspectives which a complainant may have failed to include in his complaint, such as his involvement in a case regarding the issuance of checks without sufficient funds, or the issuance of several court sentences which should be served by the complainant or any of his relatives. (A copy of such complaints and the reply of the competent officials is attached to the annex.).

These kinds of complaints have embarrassed the NCHR in its contacts with the competent authorities, who now request the NCHR to accurately scrutinize complaints before forwarding them.