Annual Report of The National Council for Human Rights

Cont. - Chapter Four

Grievances

The common features among the replies provided to the NCHR by the concerned entities are displayed below. Such analysis was conducted on basis of the direct replies delivered to the NCHR as well as the verbal remarks made by representatives of some entities participating in the NCHR's Five-member Committee.
It is worth noting that such stances taken or the statements made by such representatives bespeak of the general policies of their ministers and ministries with regard to human rights cases addressed to them by the NCHR.

1- Replies to the Claims made Regarding the Violation of Individual Rights to Personal Freedom and Safety:

The MoI, via its replies delivered to the NCHR, or via the remarks of its representative made to the Five-member Committee, stresses that despite the fact that the Emergency Law is temporary, yet, it insists on the importance of maintaining the powers granted by such Law.
The Ministry regards them as the minimum level of powers that may enable relevant security bodies to maintain public safety and stability. Such replies and remarks reiterate said Law's main contribution in making unprecedented achievements with regard to aborting jihad operations of extremist and terrorist groups.
Accordingly, and out of its keenness on maintaining national security in Egypt on political, economic and social levels, the Ministry recommends the drafting of a new law for fighting terrorism instead of the Emergency Law.
It insists that such new law should provide concerned bodies with similar powers and flexible rules that would facilitate arresting and detaining individuals for long periods without trial and that would grant security bodies all necessary powers and authorities to fight extremism and terrorism.
The Ministry also recommends that such law be drafted in coordination with the Ministries of Interior and Justice as well as the Public Prosecutor, and that the entirety of Article 3 of the current Emergency Law be included in that law, while paying due regard to the freedom of citizens. The Ministry believes that the Emergency state could be cancelled in Egypt only if such conditions were fulfilled.
The MoI declared its official stance with regard to some of the claims made regarding the right to life and personal freedom and safety relating to the arrest, torture or coercive disappearance of certain individuals.
Such replies made via correspondences delivered to the NCHR by the MoI or via the remarks made by its representative at the Five-member Committee, are shown as follows:

A- Regarding Arrests:

The Ministry denies the existence of what is claimed to be random or group arrests, as alleged in some complaints. It assures that arrests are restricted to specific persons on basis of certain information or investigations referring to their intention to conspire against public safety and stability.
The Ministry also faces difficulty in determining the number of those arrested in security prisons and camps due to the variance of their numbers from time to time. Accordingly, the Ministry refrains from providing the NCHR or any other entity with the number of detainees.
The criteria adopted by the MoI for the release of detainees are limited to the following criteria:

- Critical health cases which are beyond the control of prison authority or infirmaries.
- Guaranteeing the detainee's abandonment of extremist ideas against national security.
- Ensuring that the detainee no longer represents a threat to national security.
- The issuance of a court judgment stating his release.

In its replies to the NCHR, the MoI reiterated that such conditions must be fulfilled and evidenced in the complaints submitted by the detainees in order that they be released. In the absence of any one of such conditions, the detainee's demand for release is to be rejected.
The Ministry further rejected the NCHR's grouping of related complaints and delivering them as such to the Ministry. It assured that each case would be investigated separately, after which it would provide the NCHR with its feedback one at a time.
The NCHR delivered to the Ministry 242 correspondences, 175 of which included demands, pleadings and complaints for the release of 725 detainees.
In return, and until 15 February 2005, the MoI delivered 27 replies to the NCHR, 22 of which bespoke of the Ministry's official stance with regard to the detainees' release demands. In each of such replies, the Ministry provided its feedback on a list of between 10 to 15 detainees, including an explanation regarding the case of each, the reason for the detainee's arrest, in addition to the Ministry's opinion with regard to his release demand.
The Ministry stated its opinion regarding the demands of 269 detainees and decided the issuance of decrees for the release of only 37 of them due to their satisfaction of the conditions stated above. Although the administrative release of 24 detainees was decided in execution of court judgments, nonetheless, new decrees were issued for their arrest on the same release dates.
The rest of the release demands were rejected owing to the existence of one particular reason, namely:
"The detainee is a member of an illegal organization established in violation of the Constitution and the Law and he uses violence, which is a principle of the movement he belongs to, for upsetting public safety and stability. Therefore, several precautionary decrees were issued against him in accordance with Law No. 162 of 1958 and its amendments for curbing his criminal threat."
Such decision was made despite the Ministry's own confession of the deteriorating health of a large number of detainees as stated in its replies, and despite the issuance of court judgments for their release. This decision was based on the non-fulfillment of one vital condition, which was the detainees' being no longer a threat to national security as indicated in the Ministry's replies.
It is evident that security threats are the main concern of the Ministry when considering the demands of detainees in general, and their educational and health demands in particular, especially their demands to be transferred from current prisons to other nearby prisons to their residences or universities. In other cases, the Ministry refused that they be allowed to take their exams inside university campus.

B- Regarding Torture:

Only three replies were received by the NCHR from the MoI to the 75 correspondences delivered to it regarding illegal detention and torture at police stations.
In its replies, the Ministry stated that it has been the habit of some local and international human rights organizations to spread such allegations inside Egypt and abroad without having any solid proof to that. The Ministry sees such allegations to be in contradiction with its general policies which are applied at punitive institutions and police stations.
It states that such punitive entities give eminent attention to human rights principles under the supervision of the Public Prosecution Office, which carries out regular and sudden inspections to all such punitive institutions and police stations throughout Egypt.
As for the allegations regarding torture taking place inside the premises of the State Security Service, the Ministry assures that these premises are not deemed detention premises since they are considered security information systems which have no jurisdiction whatsoever over detention operations. Therefore, regular inspection visits are not made to such SSS premises.
The Ministry's replies and the statements made by its representative at the Five-member Committee, reveal that torture inside detention premises and police stations was never a common policy of the Ministry nor a regular practice inside Egypt and that such acts were only individual cases against which necessary procedures are being taken and that those involved in such cases are being strictly punished in accordance with the law.
The Ministry stressed, through its representative at the Five-member Committee, that the NCHR should not address other authorities such as the Public Prosecutor and the Ministry of Justice, to investigate torture claims since such complaints were referred to the Ministry in the end for conducting the necessary investigations and taking relevant action.
After investigating the complaints of three individuals, in which they claimed that they were tortured, the MoI proved, as stated in its replies, that they were false allegations made by individuals known by police officers as dangerous criminals. This drove the Ministry to issue decrees for their arrest due to inciting murders and upsetting security and stability in their residential areas.

C- Coercive Disappearance:

The NCHR sent out five correspondences regarding coercive disappearance, three of which were addressed to the MoI, one to the Public Prosecutor and one to the Ministry of Justice.
At the meeting of the Five-member Committee, the Ministry representative disapproved of the steps taken by the NCHR for addressing complaints of coercive disappearance to other competent ministries and authorities, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Public Prosecutor, since as the Ministry representative assured, they were also referred to the Ministry in the end, which only caused the duplication of the NCHR's efforts.
This implicit agreement between the MoI and said authorities with regard to coercive disappearance is evident from the replies sent in their regard as the NCHR did not receive any replies from the Ministry of Justice nor the Public Prosecutor despite the lapse of over four months since the delivery of such correspondences to them.
On the other hand, the only reply delivered to the NCHR was by the MoI, which was sent within less than ten days from the date of its receipt of the NCHR's correspondences. Its reply, made by the Prison Sector Assistant Minister, stated that upon referring to the Sector's database and records, none of the names alleged by the complainants to have disappeared ever existed.

2- Replies Regarding the Treatment of Prisoners:

The NCHR sent 65 correspondences to the Ministries of Interior and Justice and the Public Prosecutor regarding claims of cruel treatment and poor health care provided in prison. Others demanded that they be granted the right to education in prison, visitation rights and phone calls from relatives, conditional release rights or that they be released after completing their sentences in prison.
None of these entities replied to the NCHR bespeaking of any effort taken for the delivery of justice to the complainants, with the exception of the MoI, which sent the NCHR three replies.
In one of these replies, the Ministry denied the allegations made by one of the human rights organizations with regard to the hunger strike of the prisoners of Abou Zabel maximum security prison as a result of the cruel punitive treatment, the poor health services and the poor nutrition the prisoners received, in addition to being denied their visitation rights. The MoI confirmed that there was no proof to the soundness of such allegations.
The second reply concerned a complainant's demand that his father be released for health reasons. The Ministry replied that his father's health was stable and that he was receiving proper treatment in the infirmary. Accordingly, he could not be granted the release privilege which was granted to other prisoners with critical health conditions beyond the infirmaries' control.
The third reply was made to the NCHR's correspondence regarding depriving a prisoner from taking his mid-year exam at Cairo University. The MoI, stated that, out of its concern regarding the prisoner's educational future, it would contact Cairo University in order to form a special exams committee inside prison for this purpose.
The remaining correspondences of the NCHR regarding other complaints concerning prisoner treatment are still being investigated by the Ministry, as was conveyed to the NCHR by the Ministry representative at the Five-member Committee who undertook to deliver the Ministry's replies to the NCHR promptly.

3- Replies to the NCHR's correspondences regarding Prevention from Traveling and Freedom of Moving within the Country:

No replies were received by the NCHR from the competent authorities, which are the MoI and the Public Prosecutor, regarding the complaints made by Egyptians and foreigners whose names were placed on the travel prohibition list.

4- Replies to the NCHR's Correspondences regarding being Granted the Egyptian Nationality or Proving Same:

Until 15 February 2005, the NCHR did not receive any replies to any of its correspondences sent to the MoI in this regard, despite the lapse of over 150 days from the date of the delivery of such correspondences.

5- Replies to Complaints regarding the Violation of the Freedom of creed and worship:

The NCHR addressed 27 of these complaints to the MoI and some of the Governorates in Upper Egypt. 23 of these complaints were concerning the renovation of some churches and worship sites.
One complaint concerned the allegations of an Armenian Christian family, claiming that it was exposed to religious persecution by the security bodies in Port Said. Another correspondence was sent by the NCHR regarding a similar complaint in Port Said.
The NCHR sent one correspondence to the Radio and Television Union regarding the complaints of five TV announcers in Channel Five, in which they claimed that they were not given alternate posts after they decided to wear veils. It also sent one correspondence to Shubra Educational Department regarding changing the name of a Coptic School.
The NCHR addressed the Chairman of the Arab Real Estate Investment Company with regard to the demand made by a number of Christians residing in the City constructed by that Company, demanding its construction of a church on the land allocated for that purpose.
The NCHR only received five replies to these correspondences. One was made by the MoI regarding the persecution of the Armenian family in Port Said, in which it denied such allegations. The Ministry revealed that the complainant made up these allegations only to force his creditors comprising of both individuals and banks to resolve the dispute between them by amicable means, to force security bodies to release his wife who was arrested in execution of three judgments issued against her for issuing cheques without sufficient balance, in addition to the cancellation of the criminal accusations made against him in 20 cases for issuing cheques without balance. The reply made by Port Said Governorate was consistent with that of the MoI.
The Board of Trustees of the Radio and Television Union replied to the NCHR regarding its prevention of veiled women from working as TV presenters, stating that the Radio and Television Union respects the personal freedom of all male and female personnel alike. On the other hand, it would have expected its personnel to carry out their duties in accordance with the applicable laws, and the Union's regulations and bylaws.
Nonetheless, out of the Union's regard to the best interest of all parties and out of its respect to personal freedom, such TV presenters were assigned other tasks where they would not have to appear on the TV screen.
Regarding the NCHR's correspondence sent to Shubra Educational Department concerning changing the name of the Coptic School to Galal School, which the complainant deemed as a sort of discrimination against Copts, the Department stated that the School's name was not altered, and that there were two other schools bearing that name, one of which was a recently constructed experimental school.
The Arab Real Estate Investment Company replied to the NCHR's correspondence stating that it had allocated a land plot for building a church on it, which first necessitated being granted the necessary permits and licenses from the competent authorities, and that it would accordingly, undertake its construction on its own account.
In spite of the Ministry's representative's undertaking to deliver prompt replies to correspondences sent by the NCHR regarding the renovation of churches, as well as related orphanages and establishments, the NCHR has not received any replies in this regard as yet.

6- Replies to the NCHR's Correspondences regarding the Right to Participation and Voting:

The NCHR only received one reply in this regard from Cairo University which was in response to the complaints submitted by a number of students for being prohibited from exercising their nomination and voting rights in student union elections. The University presented a detailed analysis regarding the acts and legal procedures taken against the students of each faculty, which revealed the soundness of the procedures taken and their compliance with the bylaws and regulations governing electoral processes at universities.
On the other hand, no replies were delivered to the NCHR by any of the Universities of Helwan, Alexandria, Zagazig and Azhar nor by the Egyptian Labour Union with regard to student elections and labour syndicate elections.

7- Replies to the NCHR's Correspondences regarding Violations against the Rights of Egyptians Abroad:

The NCHR received 11 replies from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to a total of 34 correspondences sent to it regarding labour rights, financial rights and judicial disputes in which Egyptians living or working abroad were involved. The Ministry included in its replies, all the amicable and diplomatic efforts exerted by it for delivering justice to the complainants.
On the other hand, the Ministry revealed that it was incapable of taking any action with regard to certain cases which necessitated that the complainants themselves resort to lawyers for retrieving their rights through judicial means in such foreign countries since no budget was allocated at the Ministry for that purpose. It accordingly apologized for not being able to provide such type of legal assistance to the complainants.

8- Replies regarding the Right to Litigation and Justice:

The NCHR delivered 75 correspondences to the Ministry of Justice regarding court judgments that were issued in favour of the complainants without being executed. The Ministry only delivered two replies to the NCHR in this regard, in which it referred to the execution of such court judgments by the condemned parties, which took place after the Ministry strictly ordered them to abide by such judgments issued against them. These entities mainly included the MoI, South Sinai Governorate, the Agriculture Department of Giza Governorate and the Ministry of Housing. However, the Educational Department of Qena Governorate advised that it was not notified of the judgment nor the party in favour of which such judgment was issued.

9- Replies regarding the Violation of Economic and Social Rights:

Many concerned entities, including ministries, governorates, governmental authorities or institutions, companies and banks, were keen on providing the NCHR with detailed replies to the correspondences sent to them by the NCHR, which amounted to 545 correspondences.
Such replies indicated the stance of the concerned entity with regard to the complainants' demands for exercising their rights relating to labour, housing and health care or their complaints against the violation of such rights.
The entities, after investigating the cases at hand, either denied the allegations made in the complaints or demonstrated the steps or procedures that should be taken by the complainants in order to be granted the rights or provided the services they requested, particularly regarding social care, housing and employment opportunities.
Furthermore, in some cases, the entities referred to some aspects in the complaints which were indicative that the complainant was not entitled to receiving such services or that he does not satisfy the required conditions.
In other cases, the entities demonstrated the non-violation of the procedures taken by such entities according to the applicable rules regarding the relevant complaints.