Annual Report of The National Council for Human Rights

Cont. - Chapter Four

Grievances

This section aims at revealing the general trends of complaints delivered to the NCHR in order to identify the types of violations complainants believe to have been committed against their rights, as well as the sources of and reasons behind such violations. This section will also delineate the methods and mechanisms by which such violations have been violated or compromised.

This analysis follows a number of controls. It is based on the contents of complaints without interpretations which may contravene with set scientific restrictions or may ignore well-known international rules regarding the study of complaints.
Complaints are examined to verify their soundness and seriousness. This is vital according to the NCHR because of the lack of field and legal investigation tools and procedures which verify the seriousness of complaints and the accuracy of the information included therein. In addition, this analysis shows the common aspects in the methods and mechanisms by which rights and freedoms have been violated without going into marginal details concerning social stature and personal circumstances.
Furthermore, it specifies each of the rights that have been compromised or violated, and presents the guarantees and evidence that support such rights in international agreements and conventions as well as in the Egyptian Constitution, laws, executive regulations, and ministerial decrees governing such rights.
In analyzing violated rights, the following considerations were made: the number of complaints regarding a violation or compromising of a right or freedom, the extent of such violation, and the bodies and authorities committing such violation. Violations are categorized as follows:

1- Complaints on the Violation of Freedoms and Personal Safety:

a) Imprisonment:

From the beginning of March through the end of December 2004, the NCHR received 425 complaints in which complainants claim their freedoms and safety rights, or those of their relatives, have been violated and that their imprisonment is an infringement on the "scarce" regulations stipulated by the legislature in the Emergency Law. This is not to mention the violation of their rights to decent treatment in prisons as provided by the Egyptian Prison Law.

Other violations include those committed by the SSIS and prison administrations, such as the non-release of prisoners even though they have served their sentences and several court judgments have been issued by state security supreme courts - emergency circuit, annulling their imprisonment sentences and ordering their prompt release.

Violations committed against the freedom and personal safety of individuals represent 9.7% of the total 4,850 complaints. Below are some remarks and the delineation of the general trends of these complaints:

- Complainants claim that their right to personal safety has been violated by their arrest. Political arrest is carried out pursuant to administrative decisions in accordance with Article 3 of the Emergency Law. There are 382 complaints in this regard. This large number indicates that security forces consider imprisonment the easiest means to maintain security and stability.

- Other complaints concern the continued imprisonment of individuals who have served their sentences for military and civil offenses and are therefore entitled to release. Their release is hindered by the Interior Affairs Ministry, which issues subsequent orders to keep prisoners entitled to release in custody. Furthermore, some suspects are imprisoned for long intervals without being tried. There are 43 complaints in this regard, representing 10.5% of the total number of complaints on imprisonment.

- There are 87 complaints concerning imprisonment in the form of collective complaints including the names of 2 to 25 prisoners. Complaints of single prisoners amount to 338. The total number of prisoners whose names are inscribed on all such complaints amounts to 721. Because the Interior Affairs Ministry does not issue statistics or official statements regarding the number of prisoners, their sentence terms, and their distribution in Egyptian prisons, we are obligated to rely on the estimations of Egyptian and international human rights organizations that indicate that the total number of prisoners in Egypt lies between 20,000 to 25,000 prisoners.

- As for the categorization of complaints according to their submitters and the method of submission, the complaints of individuals ranked first, as they have submitted 385 complaints. As for complaints submitted by human rights organizations, they ranked second, amounting to 35 complaints of which: 27 were from the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, 7 from Hisham Mobarak Centre for Law, and 1 from the Arab Organization for Human Rights. There are also 2 complaints from the Doctors Syndicate, and 3 from the Bar Association. It is worth mentioning that 390 of these complaints were delivered to the NCHR via mail; 25 via facsimile, and 10 via hand-delivery. Since most of the complainants are residents of Upper Egypt (especially from Minia, Beni Suef and Assuit) or of Lower Egypt, sending complaints via mail was the easiest and cheapest means.

- As for imprisonment methods and imprisonment procedures carried out by the Interior Affairs Ministry against complainants, a common point stressed in relevant complaints is that imprisonment was carried out in violation of the "scarce" guarantees provided by Article 3 of the Emergency Law, which necessitates the issuance of a written arrest warrant stating the reason for arrest, and the suspect's right to make a telephone call and contact a lawyer. Complainants state that their arrests were according to verbal orders without warrants. According to 402 complaints, some complainants have been detained for up to one month in illegal detention facilities, including the buildings and headquarters of the SSIS, police stations, and the camps of security forces under the Interior Affairs Ministry. They have been deprived of visitation rights and have been tortured and beaten for sometimes up to one month prior to the issuance of warrants for their arrest and before their transfer to detention facilities.

- Another 297 complainants claim that court judgments had been issued for their release by state security supreme courts - emergency circuit, but they were denied release. In fact, a prisoner remained detained in spite of the issuance of 15 court judgments for his release. In such cases, the Interior Affairs Ministry only technically releases prisoners on paper, and then issues new orders for their detention. This may lead to their imprisonment for long intervals that may reach 16 years. This phenomenon is referred to by those concerned with human rights issues as "repetitive imprisonment", which violates the principles of the supremacy of the law and permits the non-execution of court judgments by certain authorities.

- In addition, the Interior Affairs Minister has abused the powers vested in him by the Emergency Law in repeatedly challenging release judgments issued by state security supreme courts - emergency circuit, which represents a serious violation and delay in applying Article 72 of the Constitution; which provides that: "judgments are issued and executed in the name of the people. Abstaining from or deferring the execution of a judgment by any civil servant is considered a crime punishable by law. The person to whom a judgment is awarded has the right to file a direct lawsuit at the competent court."

- The analysis of the contents of complaints shows that the reasons and       justifications for imprisonment are as follows:
            • belonging to an extreme Islamic group which poses a threat to State                 security and stability:
                There are 183 complaints from members of extreme Islamic groups. In                 most of these complaints, complainants declare they are now dissociated                 with such groups and abandoned their beliefs. They also refer to the                 affirmations of security forces that they no longer pose a threat to security,                 which justifies their entitlement to release from prison. Accordingly,                 complainants have requested their release on the basis of poor health                 conditions and their penance, in addition to the long years of                 imprisonment they have served and the issuance of judgments for their                 release.
            • participating in demonstrations and student protest marches inside                   university and college campuses :
                Most of these demonstrations and protests were against Israel's suppressive                 policies against Palestinians, America's support to Israel, and                 America's policies regarding certain Islamic countries. There are 38                 complaints regarding detention for participation in such demonstrations                 and protest marches. Detention periods range between one and five years.                 All complainants in these cases have been awarded judgments for their                 release by state security supreme courts - emergency circuit. However,                 the Interior Affairs Minister has recurrently ordered the extension of their                 imprisonment after technically releasing them on paper.
            • unknown reasons and justifications:
                There are 204 complaints, representing 48% of the total complaints on                 imprisonment, filed by individuals and civil society organizations to inquire                 about the reasons and justifications behind the imprisonment of their                 relatives, as they were not specified in their arrest warrants. As pointed out                 by 52 complainants, their relatives were arrested because they "regularly                 attended prayers in mosques", or because a large group of people visited                 them to cure them by reading verses from the Koran. Another 82                 complainants claimed that imprisonment was carried out within the scope                 of precautionary security measures taken by the Interior Affairs Ministry                 prior to the elections of the People's Assembly, Shura Council, vocational                 syndicates and university student unions.
                This action is a means to prevent them from seeking election candidacy or                 providing electoral support or assistance to candidates that advocate                 Islamic political movements. In spite of the lapse of over ten years of                 imprisonment in some cases, some prisoners remain detained although                 they have been awarded court sentences for their release.

Three complainants claim they were arrested for having sent telegraphs written in an "inappropriate manner" to the President and the Interior Affairs Minister. They included sentences such as "Fear God and rule by His legislations". Accordingly, the complainants were imprisoned from 5 and 10 years.

Another five complainants claim that they were arrested when the police widened their scope of suspects after the terrorist bombs in Taba in October 2004. Hundreds of individuals were detained in Arish City. In some cases, women and children were detained and abused at the premises of the SSIS. Most of the detainees were transferred to security camps and maximum-security prisons without the issuance of written arrest warrants and without notifying their relatives of their whereabouts or the reasons for their detention. The detainees were thus deprived of their visitation rights even after the lapse of 60 days from their detention.

Another 397 complainants claim that their basic rights granted by international agreements and conventions and the Egyptian Prison Law were violated during their temporary detention. They were deprived of visitation rights, healthcare, the completion of studies, and the provision of appropriate income. The violation of these rights is detailed as follows:

1-Visitation Rights:

There are 193 complaints in which the relatives of detainees relate the difficulty of obtaining visitation permits with a validity period of only six days. In all of Egypt, visitation permits can only be obtained from the Prisoners Affairs Office under the Assistant Public Prosecutor located at the Galaa Court Complex in Cairo. To obtain a visitation permit, a grievance request must be submitted, the serial number thereof must be obtained and recorded on a visitation application form to which a photocopy of the last visitation permit issued must be attached, and a statement indicating the relationship between the prisoner and visitor, such as the birth certificate of parents, siblings and children and marriage certificates of spouses must be attached. After these documents are made available, the competent civil servant records the permit and reviews all the data. He then sends the form to the Assistant Public Prosecutor for its approval or rejection. In case the form is approved, it is forwarded to the Prisoners Affairs Office to be sealed by the State stamp and then delivered to the applicant the following day in the afternoon after his identity is verified. There are 76 complaints from prisoners who claim that after their relatives arrived at the prison in which they were detained, with visitation permits in hand, they were informed that the prisoners were deprived of visitation rights for intervals between two to three months.

Another 26 complainants claim that they were transferred to other prisons without the notification of their relatives of their new location. This is deemed a violation of visitation rights and an explicate violation of Article 3 bis of the Emergency Law, which states that, " A detainee shall have the right to contact those whom he wishes to inform of is arrest and to request a lawyer. Such detainee shall be treated as if under temporary custody." It is also deemed a violation of Article 37 of Prison Law No. 396 of 1956, which grants those convicted and under temporary custody both correspondence and visitation rights once a week on any week day (except on official holidays), as specified under Article 60 of the Law's Executive Regulations.

2- Right to Healthcare:

The provisions of Article 16 of Prison Law No. 396 of 1956 stipulate the right of prisoners and temporary detainees to receive food and medicine from outside the prison. They also have the right to receive the food and medical care provided for them by the prison in which they are detained. Decree No. 9 of 1961 adopted by the Minister of Interior stipulates that healthcare should be provided to all prisoners and temporary detainees.
Officials in the MOI have issued statements declaring that various infirmaries had been established to the latest standards and furnished with the most modern medical equipment to provide healthcare services inside prisons.
Nonetheless, 123 complainants assert that prisoners are suffering from poor medical care. According to them, prison infirmaries are insufficiently furnished with the necessary equipment and medical supplies, not to mention the lack of specialized doctors. Add to that the lack of cleanliness and the contamination of potable water and food.

All of this has caused the complainants' imprisoned relatives to contract serious illnesses, such as: hepatitis, epilepsy, blindness, severe pulmonary tuberculosis, cardiac diseases, renal failure, coronary insufficiency, rheumatic fever, asthma, circulatory disorder, as well as the spread of a number of dermatological diseases.

3- Right to Resume Studies:

Article 13 of the Prison Law and Rule No. 77 on the minimum rights of prisoners stipulate that prisoners and temporary detainees have the right to resume their studies and to sit for examinations at relevant centers of education.
However, 47 complaints claim that they have faced a number of difficulties in resuming their studies for various reasons, such as: the long distance between their prison location and examination centers; the ban on academic books, and the absence of the right atmosphere for studying.

4- Right to Adequate Income:

The Grievance Committee received 53 complaints from prisoners claiming that their employers, whether from public or private sectors, have ceased to pay their financial dues, which are the only source of income for their families. This worsens their already pathetic financial situation.

Another 17 complainants requested that prisoners of the same family be detained in the same prison instead of various ones. Their families would then find it easier to visit all of them at once and would thus save on the transportation expenses they incur.

The release of an only son from prison was requested by 11 families whose imprisoned sons are the sole source of income and caretaking for them, especially in cases of senile parents.

Another 8 complainants claim that children have stopped attending school in order to take up manual labor that provides for their families instead of their imprisoned fathers.
The above complaints and requests for the release of prisoners mention that, according to the SSIS, security restrictions on the release of such prisoners no longer exist.

b) Illegal Detention:

The NCHR received 27 complaints claiming that suspects had been terrorized at the time of arrest. Five of these complainants claim that their residences were searched without search warrants. One of the complainants states that police forces released teargas at their residence while arresting one of his relatives.

By reviewing various complaints, it was noted that detention is sometimes carried out by police officers only to settle scores with civilians (detainees) or to pressure them into working as informers. Illegal detention may also be carried out in case of suspicions regarding the political and intellectual inclinations of any citizen.

Illegal detention denies temporary detainees and suspects under investigation such guarantees and rights as the right to contact relatives or appoint a legal counsel.

Complaints from detainees state that they were held in deplorable conditions in police stations and the offices of the SSIS neither of which provides food or medication. Besides, detention areas in police stations are usually so overcrowded that detainees have space enough for standing up only. Hygiene, ventilation and clean potable water are in short supply, which makes detainees more susceptible to contracting diseases.

Some complainants claim that they have been subjected to cruel treatment, and even deadly torture. It should be noted however that police stations and the offices of the SSIS are established pursuant to Article 1 bis of Law No. 396 of 1956, granting the MOI the authority to determine the places at which individuals are to be detained. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor never inspects their premises unless notified of a legal detention thereat.

c) Coercive Disappearance:

The NCHR received seven complaints in which complainants claim one of their relatives had disappeared. Of these complainants, six believe that security forces are responsible for such disappearances. The complaints highlight the inefficient means of following up on disappearance cases. It is limited to filing a report at the police station and submitting a grievance to the Prisoners Affairs Department to inquire if the missing person was detained or imprisoned.

The Department is not obligated to respond to the inquiry or to investigate the matter. The relatives of the missing person must thus inquire at the offices of SSIS, prisons and detention camps.

One complainant received a telephone call from his brother informing him that he had been detained but could not identify the place of his detention. Another complainant stated that although the release of his missing relative had been issued, officers denied that he had been detained at their premises at all.

The Yemeni Organization for Defending Human Rights complained that a Yemeni residing in Cairo had disappeared. There were allegations that he had been deported to Yemen. This is considered a violation of the United Nations Declaration issued in December 1992 on protecting individuals from coercive disappearance. Article 8 of the Declaration states that, "A country may not deport, refute or hand over any individual to another country if there is serious belief that that individual may be subject to coercive disappearance."