AI NEWS JULY 1998
Final text
AI Index: NWS 21/04/98
The Americas
Human rights defenders on the front line
The recent murders of two prominent human rights defenders in Colombia and Guatemala have
been a chilling reminder of the need for a program for the protection and promotion of human
rights throughout the Americas.
Dr Eduardo Umaña Mendoza, a prominent human rights lawyer, was killed on 18 April 1998,
when two men and a woman entered his office in Bogota, Colombia, and shot him in the head. He
was the fourth defender to be killed in a year. Dr Umaña had helped found several of Colombia’s
non-governmental human rights organizations, and as a human rights lawyer he represented
political prisoners, trade unionists and relatives of the “disappeared”, seeking justice in many high
profile cases of human rights violations perpetrated by members of the security forces. The killing
of Dr Umaña came only days after the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon the
Colombian Government to provide further protection for human rights defenders.
Bishop Juan Gerardi Conedera was murdered in Guatemala City on 26 April 1998, battered to
death with a piece of paving stone. He was so disfigured in the attack that he was only identifiable
by his bishop’s ring. Bishop Gerardi, a 76-year-old human rights activist within the Guatemalan
Catholic Church, was killed only days after launching a report by the Church’s Recuperation of
Historical Memory Project (REMHI). The report collated testimonies concerning human rights
violations affecting a total of 1,400,000 people during the 36-year Guatemalan civil conflict, and
blamed official forces for more than 90 per cent of the cases investigated. It is feared that Bishop
Gerardi was murdered by agents of these official forces. Since his death, the pattern of
intimidation has continued; others connected with REMHI have received death threats, and only
hours after Bishop Gerardi’s funeral service ended, the Archbishop of Guatemala received a
telephoned death threat warning him that he would “be next”.
The killings of Dr Umaña Mendoza and Bishop Gerardi have highlighted once again the extreme
danger facing human rights defenders throughout the Americas. Everywhere the pattern is the
same: the intimidation of human rights defenders is directly related to their efforts to expose past
and present human rights violations.
AI is calling upon the governments of the Americas to finally accept that there is a clear pattern of
attacks against human rights defenders in their countries and to tackle the problem definitively.
Exhaustive inquiries into death threats, “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions must be
considered a priority in order to bring those responsible to justice.
What you can do
AI is running a two-year special project aimed at improving existing protection techniques for
human rights defenders in the Americas and at developing additional techniques and strategies. If
you would like to participate in the project, please contact AI in your own country, or write to:
Human Rights Defenders Project, Amnesty International, International Secretariat,
1 Easton Street, London, WC1X 8DJ, United Kingdom.
You can also help by urging your own government to condemn publicly the recent killings of Dr
Umaña Mendoza and Bishop Gerardi and all human rights violations committed against human
rights defenders in the Americas. Express your conviction that a strong reaction by the
international community would represent an important step in helping to guarantee the safety of
human rights workers.
PHOTO
2
Relatives carry the coffin of Dr Eduardo Umaña Mendoza © Reuters
CAMBODIA
Elections under the shadow of fear
The twelve months since the violent overthrow of First Prime Minister Prince Norodom
Ranariddh by Second Prime Minister Hun Sen have seen a spate of political killings and other
abuses, with total impunity for those responsible. The resulting climate of fear looks set to
compromise elections which are due to take place on 26 July.
Fighting between rival groups has disrupted the lives of tens of thousands, while security
personnel, operating with an absolute lack of accountability for their actions, have been behind
scores of political killings. Hor Sok, Secretary of State in the Ministry of Interior and close to
Prince Ranariddh, was arrested on 7 July 1997 and held in the Ministry of Interior. By the end of
the day he was dead, reportedly shot twice by government security forces. Hor Sok is just one of
dozens of Prince Ranariddh’s supporters to have been extrajudicially executed. On 4 March 1998
Thach Kim Sang, a former Brigadier-General loyal to Prince Ranariddh, was killed in Phnom
Penh.
A peace plan, known as the “four pillars initiative”, was negotiated with a group of countries
known as the “Friends of Cambodia” in February 1998, to facilitate elections. It lacks adequate
human rights safeguards. In recent months senior government officials have openly criticized the
work of UN human rights officials, indicating a declining regard for human rights. On 3 April a
Cambodian UN human rights worker was beaten up by a group of people including uniformed
security personnel. Other human rights defenders face intimidation, harassment and attack.
Action is needed now to ensure that the political situation is not governed by violence and
intimidation, and that Cambodia’s people can participate in the elections with freedom and
security.
You can help by calling on the government in your own country to press for an end to human
rights violations in Cambodia, and to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Photo: Hor Sok © Andy Eames
FIJI
New constitution addresses human rights
A new Constitution, including a Bill of Rights and a new Human Rights Commission, comes into
effect in Fiji on 27 July 1998.
The Constitution “reaffirms recognition of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all
individuals and groups” and recognizes Fiji’s multicultural society. It supports a process of
national reconciliation between the major ethnic groups, whose political leaders have agreed to
form a multi-racial government following elections due by February 1999.
These developments are particularly significant given that the 1990 Constitution, introduced after
a military coup removed the elected government in May 1987, gave political dominance to
indigenous Fijians while discriminating against ethnic Indians. The new Constitution’s Bill of
Rights protects the rights of ethnic minorities, but also recognizes indigenous traditions. Following
large scale emigration of ethnic Indians, indigenous Fijians now make up some 50 per cent of the
population.
AI welcomes the Fiji Government’s moves to create a national Human Rights Commission based
on internationally agreed human rights principles. Fiji’s Ombudsman has been appointed
3
Chairperson of the Commission, and options for enabling legislation are currently being
discussed.
Photo
Sitiveni Rabuka, Prime Minister of Fiji, addresses a human rights workshop
RWANDA
A brutal injustice
Twenty-two people were executed in Rwanda in April 1998 for their part in the 1994 genocide.
The executions, the first of their kind to have taken place, were carried out in front of large
crowds. The authorities have continued to justify these executions, despite international protests,
and have indicated that the process is likely to continue.
Many of those executed had been subject to grossly unfair trials. The defence witnesses for former
assistant prosecutor Silas Munyagishali, for example, had been threatened and intimidated.
Virginie Mukankusi, the first woman to be tried for participation in the genocide, was among
those executed in Kigali. None of the defence witnesses she named was called to testify during her
trial. Several other defendants who were executed did not even have access to a defence lawyer.
As of mid-May 1998 around 10 further people are believed to be at risk of imminent execution,
subject to their final appeals for presidential clemency. More than a hundred others have been
sentenced to death and are facing the judicial appeals procedure. Thousands more charged with
involvement in the genocide may face the death penalty if found guilty.
As many as one million people were killed during the genocide and other massacres in Rwanda
between April and July 1994. AI continues to campaign for those suspected of participation in the
genocide and other grave human rights violations to be brought to justice, but in fair trials and
without recourse to the death penalty.
You can help by calling for the President to grant clemency to all the defendants who have been
sentenced to death and by stressing that those who participated in the genocide should be brought
to justice, but appealing for them to be given fair trials and sentences which do not violate the
right to life. Write to: President Pasteur Bizimungu, Office of the President, BP 15, Kigali,
Rwanda (faxes: 250 84390).
Photo: Silas Munyagishali © Peter Andrews / Reuters
WWAs
Ethiopia
Health concerns / prison conditions
Dr Asrat Woldeyes, 69, one of Ethiopia's most prominent medical doctors, has been in prison in
Addis Ababa since 1994. He is gravely ill, and there are fears that he is not receiving adequate
medical attention.
Dr Asrat Woldeyes is currently confined to a small hospital room and armed guards are stationed
outside. He was admitted to hospital in January this year, after he lost vision in his right eye. He
was diagnosed with diabetes and as suffering from high blood pressure; he may also have had a
stroke. In April Dr Asrat suffered severe headaches, difficulties in speech and body movement,
swollen limbs, and deteriorating left-eye vision. He was reportedly diagnosed as suffering from a
brain haemorrhage, which could be life-threatening.
Despite the need for Dr Asrat to receive appropriate and specialist medical attention, security
restrictions prevent him from being examined outside his hospital room. He is denied full
information about his treatment and the opportunity to be treated by doctors of his own choice.
4
The strain of harsh prison conditions and more than 170 court appearances in four years may have
contributed to Dr Asrat Woldeyes’ current poor health. He is near the end of a fourth trial, which
began in 1995. AI is concerned about the fairness of the trial.
+ Please write, urging that Dr Asrat Woldeyes be given adequate medical treatment, to: His
Excellency Meles Zenawi, Prime Minister, Prime Minister’s Office, PO Box 1031, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia (faxes: 2511 552030).
Syria
POC / Unfair trial
Doha ‘Ashur al-’Askari is serving a six-year prison term with hard labour in Duma Women’s
Prison in Damascus, after her legitimate right to express her opinion was branded an “act of
terrorism”.
Doha al-’Askari had already been in hiding for six years when she was arrested on 11 February
1993. She was initially held in incommunicado detention, and her family only learned of her
whereabouts two months after her arrest.
In 1995, after a grossly unfair trial by the Supreme State Security Court, she was convicted on
charges of “affiliation to an organization intending to change the social and economic structure of
the state... and opposing the objectives of the revolution”. During the trial, she stressed that her
activities for the Party of Communist Action (PCA) had been limited to writing articles and
reading PCA literature.
While Doha al-’Askari was in hiding, her family were also targeted, at times to exert pressure on
her to surrender, and at others on account of their own alleged political activities. In 1992, for
example, her mother was summoned and asked to disclose the whereabouts of her daughter. A
year later, her sister Lina was arrested in an attempt to force Doha to give herself up. Doha
al-’Askari’s husband and her two younger brothers were also detained and held without charge or
trial in connection with the PCA. Her elder brother, Usama al-’Askari, is currently held beyond
the expiry of his 15-year prison sentence. AI considers him a prisoner of conscience.
+ Please write, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Doha ‘Ashur al-’Askari as
a prisoner of conscience, and for Syria to conduct all trials in accordance with international fair
trial standards, to: His Excellency President Hafez al-Assad, Presidential Palace, Damascus,
Syrian Arab Republic.
Turkey
Prisoner of conscience
[CHECK PROOFS FOR CORRECT ACCENTS]
Edip Polat, a Kurdish writer and former biology teacher, is serving a 10-month prison sentence.
He was charged and tried under Article 159 of the Turkish Penal Code for “insulting the organs of
state” in a statement he made to the newspaper Ozgur Gundem in July 1993. Ironically, the
statement for which he was imprisoned was a bitter complaint at the penalties imposed by the
courts upon writers and newspapers who exercise their freedom of expression by criticizing
government policies in the mainly Kurdish southeastern provinces of Turkey.
Edip Polat is currently held at Ankara Central Closed Prison. He is a prisoner of conscience, held
in breach of Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, to which Turkey is a state party. He has been imprisoned several times for
his writings.
+ Please write, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Edip Polat, and for the
necessary changes to be enacted to Turkish law in order to ensure the release of all prisoners of
conscience. Send letters to: Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Bulent Ecevit, Basbakanlik, 06573
Ankara, Turkey; and to: Minister of Justice, Mr Oltan Sungurlu, Adalet Bakanligi, 06659 Ankara,
5
Turkey. You can also send copies of your appeals to the prisoner: Edip Polat, Merkez Kapali
Cezaevi, 5. Kogus, Ulucanlar, Ankara, Turkey.
LEBANON/SYRIA
Freedom for over 100 detainees
Well over a hundred Lebanese detainees were released from Syrian prisons in March 1998.
Most had been held incommunicado without charge or trial. Many had been arrested or abducted
during Lebanon’s civil war, either by Syrian troops or by Lebanese militias allied to Syria,
although some were arrested after the end of the war in 1990.
For years, government officials in both Lebanon and Syria had either avoided the issue of
Lebanese detainees in Syria, or had denied their imprisonment altogether. However, in November
1997, the detainees’ families -- frustrated by their government’s inaction and heartened by the
growing international coverage of their plight -- set up their own campaigning group. Members of
this group took part in actions in Lebanon and Paris, France, organized by international human
rights non-governmental organizations, including AI; some even toured the European Union,
alerting members of the European Parliament to their cause.
Such activities were designed to send a message to the Syrian and Lebanese Governments that the
situation could go on no longer. At the beginning of March 1998, after secret negotiations, the
Lebanese authorities issued a statement saying that after the personal intervention of the Presidents
of Lebanon and Syria, 121 of the Lebanese detainees in Syria had been released.
However, the families’ battle, and the battle for human rights in Lebanon and Syria, is far from
over. Not all the Lebanese detainees in Syria were released -- scores are still being held without
charge or trial -- and within Syria itself there are still hundreds of prisoners of conscience.
Changes in law and practice to protect human rights and to prevent continued injustice are long
overdue.
See ‘Lebanon: Human Rights Developments and Violations’ (October 1997, AI Index: MDE
18/19/97).
PHOTO: Detainees’ families at the Paris conference
South Korea
Political prisoners hope for amnesty
Seventy-four political prisoners were released on 13 March 1998 to mark the inauguration of
President Kim Dae-jung, himself a former prisoner of conscience who has promised to improve
human rights in South Korea. Those released included writers Hwang Suk-young and Kim Ha-ki,
both imprisoned for making unauthorized visits to North Korea. Six elderly political prisoners
who had been in prison for over 30 years were freed on humanitarian grounds, including Shin
In-young who is terminally ill with cancer.
Despite this good news, the scope of the amnesty was disappointing. More than 250 prisoners
remain in detention under South Korea’s National Security Law which bans unauthorized contacts
with North Korea, actions which “praise” and “benefit” North Korea and vaguely defined
“anti-state” activities. Many prisoners and their families had hoped for more. “We have been
waiting for this day with great expectation for many years; we were so disappointed”, wrote
long-term prisoner Kim Jang-ho to an AI member in Japan. He and at least 14 others were tortured
and convicted after unfair trials during the 1970s and 1980s, when the new President was himself
a political prisoner. Seventeen other political prisoners have been refused release on parole
because they will not renounce communism. They include Woo Yung-gak, aged 68 and partly
paralysed, who is now starting his 41st year in prison.
6
AI hopes that many of these prisoners will be released in a second amnesty in August.
You can help by calling for the National Security Law to be brought into line with international
standards, and for further releases of prisoners. Write to: President Kim Dae-jung, The Blue
House, 1 Sejong-no, Chongno-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea (faxes: 82 2 770 0253).
Photo: Prisoners’ families demonstrate for their release in Seoul
GREECE
Freedom of expression on trial
At the time of writing, seven people were on trial in Greece for exercising their right to freedom of
expression in matters of religion and ethnicity. Although Greece took the important step last year
of becoming a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), it
has not yet incorporated the provisions of the ICCPR into domestic law. Until it does so, people
such as Traianos Pasois, Eva Androutsopoulou, and Mehmet Emin Aga will continue to face
imprisonment as prisoners of conscience.
Traianos Pasois, a member of the ethnic Macedonian minority party “Rainbow”, is charged with
entering Greece in possession of two Macedonian wall calendars, which he “intended to
circulate”. There is no evidence to suggest that the calendars contained language amounting to an
incitement to, or advocation of, violence. AI believes that the charges brought against him are
motivated by his public support for the recognition of a Macedonian minority in Greece.
Eva Androutsopoulou is charged with “making frequent references... to Buddhism and to the
religious beliefs of the Orient” during a German language class she gave at a private school in
Komotini, northern Greece, in May 1995. These charges are brought under a law which makes it
an offence to “attempt directly or indirectly to intrude on the religious beliefs of a person of a
different religious persuasion... with the aim of undermining those beliefs”. She is not even a
Buddhist herself.
Mehmet Emin Aga was tried in April 1998 on charges of “usurping the function of a religious
minister”, and is currently appealing against a sentence of six months’ imprisonment. In 1997 he
was accused of, and fined for, sending leaflets in which he signed himself as the Mufti of Xanthi.
Flight for your rights...
A Spanish biologist has discovered a type of moth, which he has named Megalomus Amnistiatus
in honour of AI's work in defence of human rights.
The moth, as far as the editors of AI News can understand from Spanish biological journals, has
egg-shaped wings, a dark caramel-coloured head and legs, and a dark thorax with circular zones.
We were intending to illustrate this news with a drawing of a moth flying next to the AI candle –
but on reflection, the cartoon left, drawn especially for AI News, seemed a much better idea...
Picture © Peter Arkle
FOCUS
Unfair trials in the Middle East and North Africa
Systems of injustice
Sheikh Salman bin Fahd al-’Awda, a prominent critic of the Saudi Arabian Government, has been
in prison since September 1994, without trial or the right to challenge his detention. ‘Abd al-’Aziz
7
al-Khayyir, a Syrian medical doctor, is in his fifth year of a 22-year prison term for having
peacefully expressed his political views. Muhammad Mahdi ‘Abdullah Makhrouf, a farmer in
Yemen, was tortured, convicted, acquitted and tried again in absentia on the same charge. He is
now under sentence of death. It took a Tunisian court just one day to find Rachida Ben Salem
guilty of belonging to an unauthorized organization and of intending to join her husband in
political exile. She is now a prisoner of conscience, serving a two-and-a-half-year jail sentence.
These people are from different backgrounds and from different countries in the Middle East and
North Africa, but they have something in common: they have all been denied their fundamental
right to a fair trial...
The right to a fair trial is a basic human right. The international community has developed a wide
range of standards to ensure fair trials, which are designed to protect people’s rights from the
moment of arrest, during pre-trial detention, the trial process and final appeal. Yet across the
Middle East and North Africa, these standards are flouted on a daily basis.
Such breaches are a major concern around the world because they represent serious violations of
human rights, and because they contribute to a number of other human rights violations. They
result in the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience. They perpetuate discriminatory laws and
practices and facilitate abuses against vulnerable groups of society. They encourage torture when
officials know that statements extracted under duress will be enough to secure conviction. They
result in people suffering irreversible punishments that amount to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading punishments, including amputations, flogging, stoning and the death penalty.
If the right to fair trial is strictly observed, the widespread and gross human rights violations
prevailing throughout the Middle East and North Africa will be significantly reduced.
Prisoners of conscience and vulnerable groups
In virtually every country in the region, people who have neither used nor advocated violence are
in prison solely for expressing their views or on suspicion of opposing the government. None
should have been detained in the first place, let alone tried -- their imprisonment is a damning
indictment of both the laws and practices in the region.
The laws of many states in the region, including Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Libya,
Morocco/Western Sahara, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia, specifically allow the imprisonment of such
prisoners of conscience. Other laws are vaguely worded and open to abuse. Sometimes
trumped-up criminal charges are used to conceal the prosecution of people for their political or
religious views.
Mahjouba Boukhris, for example, was targeted by the Tunisian authorities simply because of who
she knew and her alleged links to an unauthorized Islamist opposition group. Her husband was
already serving a 12-year prison sentence and her brother was tried alongside her. She was
sentenced to over seven years’ imprisonment on the strength of a “confession” extracted under
duress and which she denied in court. If Tunisia had upheld its duties as a state party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), she would still be free today and
with her three children.
In Jordan, the charge of insulting the King has frequently been used as an all-purpose charge
against opposition activists. Dozens of the more than 500 people arrested after bread riots in
August 1996 stated that they were charged with “insulting the King” without any specification of
time, place or details of the event.
Some groups in society are vulnerable to abuse under judicial systems which disregard
constitutional commitments to equality before the law. As a result, women, children, religious and
ethnic minorities, foreign nationals and those considered stateless often find that far from
8
redressing the imbalance, the administration of justice perpetuates the inequality by allowing them
fewer rights or punishing them more harshly.
Under the Iranian judicial system, for example, a man’s testimony has more weight than a
woman’s. In Egypt, a husband who kills his wife for committing adultery faces a maximum of
three years in prison, whereas a wife who kills her adulterer husband faces death or life
imprisonment. In Yemen, women can be detained indefinitely when arrested for “moral” offences
such as adultery.
Although states in the Middle East and North Africa have taken the important step of ratifying or
acceding to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the provisions within the Convention
are violated on a daily basis. Muhammad ‘Ali Muhammad al-’Ikri (pictured above), for example,
was 14 years old when he was among hundreds of children arbitrarily detained during round-ups
in Bahrain in 1995. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by the Juvenile Court on charges
of throwing a petrol bomb at a policeman. The sentence was later overturned on appeal and he
was released after spending several months in prison.
Abuses in pre-trial detention
Hundreds of thousands of people across the Middle East and North Africa have had their human
rights violated through procedures such as arbitrary arrest, secret detention and long-term
detention without trial.
The law in most countries of the Middle East and North Africa prohibits arbitrary arrests and
usually stipulates that warrants must be produced. Yet, warrants are rarely shown when political
suspects are arrested, and often the arresting authorities do not tell detainees or relatives where
they are being detained, leading to weeks and months of heartbreak and uncertainty for families.
(In countries such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia, relatives are sometimes too afraid even to make
inquiries.) In Libya, Al-Saghier al-Shafi’i, a 35-year-old army officer, was arrested reportedly for
political reasons at his parents’ home in October 1994; in an experience mirroring that of
hundreds of other Libyan families, his relatives did not discover where he was being held until
months later.
The catalogue of arbitrary arrests and secret detention in the region is shocking. Yemeni security
forces, in flagrant violation of the country’s own stringent safeguards and of international
standards, routinely arrest political suspects without a warrant and then hold them incommunicado
for long periods. Hundreds of people have been arrested in Lebanon since 1990 for political
reasons or on security grounds by the army and police. One former detainee told AI, “I was
detained, tortured and released without any reason nor any legal justification or formality. Upon
my release I was threatened not to be involved in politics... nor to take part in any social gathering
or otherwise they would capture me again.”
Abdellatif Mekki, former secretary-general of the Tunisian student union, was arrested in May
1991 and held illegally in secret detention for eight weeks, during which time he was tortured. He
was subsequently sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, even though the court heard of these
abuses. He is one of thousands of suspected political activists arrested since 1990 in Tunisia in
circumstances which meet virtually no legal standards or officially sanctioned practices.
In Iraq, too, arbitrary arrests of suspected government opponents continue unabated. ‘Aziz
al-Sayyid Jassem, a prominent writer, was arrested in April 1991 and reportedly held in solitary
confinement and tortured. His family received no news of him for a year. Even though the
authorities acknowledged his arrest, they continue to refuse to provide details of his whereabouts
or any charges against him.
Incommunicado detention greatly increases the risk of torture and “disappearance”. In Iraq, people
are routinely held incommunicado, and over the years vast numbers have “disappeared”.
9
Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people arrested by the security forces in Algeria over the past
five years have “disappeared” in secret detention.
Denial of the right to have access to a lawyer
The right to have access to a lawyer promptly after arrest and at frequent intervals thereafter is an
essential part of any impartial investigation, fair trial and just verdict. Yet in many countries in the
Middle East and North Africa, including Israel and the Occupied Territories, Jordan, Lebanon and
Qatar, this basic right is systematically violated.
Iran, a state party to the ICCPR, often holds political trials secretly inside prisons, with summary
proceedings and absolutely no possibility of the detainee’s lawyer attending the hearing or
consulting with his or her client. In Saudi Arabia, political prisoners are routinely denied access to
legal representation before and during trials, which are often held in camera.
In several countries, lawyers themselves are at risk of intimidation, including arbitrary arrest and
detention, if they represent political opponents of the government. As a result, they may be
unwilling to become involved in political cases, or they withdraw from them in fear or to protest
against intolerable conditions.
Confessions extracted under torture
Torture is outlawed in almost all Middle East and North African states, yet it is still allowed to
continue unchecked in virtually every country in the region. It is facilitated by the practice of
secret detention and by the attitude of authorities who do little or nothing to punish those who
commit abuses.
The UN Committee against Torture noted in 1996 that torture was systematically practised by
security forces in Egypt. The Committee also expressed its concern that no one had been brought
to justice for committing such abuses. Two years on, no steps have been taken by the Egyptian
Government to end the practice. Those in detention are still being given electric shocks, threatened
with rape, beaten, and tortured in other ways.
The use of torture is made more likely by the widespread practice of allowing conviction solely on
the basis of confessions extracted under torture. Acquitting detainees charged on the basis of such
confessions, as has happened on occasion in Egypt and Jordan, is an important first step towards
eradicating torture in any country and gives an important signal that torture is unacceptable.
Israel is the only country in the world in which torture during interrogation is expressly authorized
by law. Secret guidelines allow the General Security Service to use “moderate physical and
psychological pressure” during interrogation, methods which clearly constitute torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment. These guidelines, combined with a total lack of accountability
for state officials, have meant that many Palestinians have suffered and continue to suffer
systematic torture and ill-treatment in Israeli detention centres.
The inhumanity and injustice of torture are compounded and the practice encouraged when courts
ignore or dismiss torture allegations. All too often, judges do not call for medical examinations or
investigations into allegations of torture, even when defendants are visibly injured. Defence
lawyers who raise allegations of torture in court often do so knowing that they risk punishment
themselves, or in the knowledge that their claims will be dismissed out of hand.
Cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments
Fair trial standards are being ignored in the region even when the consequences are irreversible, as
in the case of cruel punishments such as the death penalty or corporal punishment.
While an increasing number of countries worldwide have moved towards abolishing the use of the
death penalty, several states (including Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait,
Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Yemen) in the Middle East and North Africa have increased its
10
scope or use in recent years. In the past decade, thousands of people have been put to death in the
region, many after palpably unfair trials.
Unfair trials have helped make Saudi Arabia one of the states with the highest number of
executions in the world. Foreign workers from countries in Africa and Asia appear to be more
vulnerable to such punishment because of their ethnic, religious and economic status. Foreign
nationals who are not Arabic speakers are not always provided with adequate interpretation during
all stages of their trial and appeal, as required by UN standards, and are invariably held
incommunicado for months or even years.
Some prisoners were even reported to have been executed without being informed that they were
under sentence of death. James Rebenito, a Filipino, was arrested in Saudi Arabia and charged
with murder in September 1994. He was held incommunicado until 6 May 1996, when he was
allowed a visit from his wife. Two weeks later, on 2 June 1996, he was beheaded. A former
prisoner of conscience held with him told AI that James Rebenito was unaware of his impending
execution, and not even aware that he was under sentence of death: “The night before James’
execution, he was in the cell with me. We spent our evening in the usual way, talking. James had
no idea that he was going to be executed the next day.”
In Iran, hundreds of executions take place every year for political offences, as well as for offences
such as drug-trafficking, murder and adultery. One of those convicted of adultery was Zoleykhah
Kadkhoda, who was reportedly arrested in August 1997. Within 24 hours, she had been sentenced
to death by stoning, buried up to her waist and stoned. She was reportedly confirmed dead by
doctors, but she revived in the morgue and was taken to hospital. According to the Iranian
authorities, she was released after her death sentence was lifted in November 1997.
The use of corporal punishments has also increased in recent years in some countries in the
Middle East and North Africa, despite the incompatibility between the practice and the ban on
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment in international law. Those
states in the region that carry out corporal punishment include Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab
Emirates and Yemen. Typical punishments include amputation of limbs, particularly for those
convicted of theft, and flogging.
Special courts and emergency legislation
In more than half of all countries in the Middle East and North Africa, special legal procedures or
courts have been introduced at some stage to bypass the ordinary process of law. In many cases,
the purpose has been to silence or imprison critics of the authorities.
Trials in such courts fall far short of international standards of fair trial. Crucially, they violate the
right to a full and fair public trial by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. Those in
charge of the courts are usually appointed without fair procedure, are not legally qualified, and
may be political appointees or members or the military. Often, whole groups of people are tried
and sentenced collectively, with little attention paid to the merits of individual cases.
The destructive consequences of such courts were demonstrated to the world by the use of three
special courts in Algeria to try over 10,000 people between February 1993 and June 1994. Of
these, over 1,000 were sentenced to death, and thousands still remain in prison. Although these
courts were officially disbanded in February 1995, the emergency “anti-terrorist” decrees used by
them were subsequently incorporated into permanent legislation, and continue to be used.
More than 500 political prisoners have been tried before Syria’s Supreme State Security Court
(SSSC) since 1992. The SSSC, which deals solely with political and state security cases, is neither
impartial nor independent, in direct contradiction to Syria’s obligations under the ICCPR and UN
principles. The sole right granted to those who come before the SSSC is to have a lawyer, but
because political prisoners are held in secret incommunicado detention, their ability to reach those
willing to defend them is severely restricted.
11
The Palestinian Authority’s State Security Court, set up hastily in 1995, deals almost entirely with
people accused of security offences. The Court’s procedures are grossly unfair and trials have
been held secretly and in the middle of the night, sometimes just a day after arrest. They last only
a few hours, or even minutes. Defendants are represented by court-appointed lawyers rather than
independent lawyers of their choice. Judges are members of the security forces appointed on an ad
hoc basis for each trial.
Administrative detention
“By the end of February 1997, I will have spent 33 months continuously in administrative
detention. During this time,
I have not once been able to answer the innocent and persistent question of my two girls, ‘When
are you coming home?’.”
These words come from a letter written to AI by Samir Shalalda, one of thousands of Palestinians
who have been detained without charge or trial (“administrative detention”) in Israel and the
Occupied Territories over the years. Many of them spend months and sometimes years in prison
under repeated administrative detention orders, outside the judicial process, and without knowing
why they are held. The procedure also results in torment, as hopes of release are shattered when
detention orders are renewed on expiry. The process can be repeated indefinitely, so detainees’
lives and those of their families are dominated by despair. Victims describe the use of such orders
as “another form of torture”.
Many other states in the region have turned administrative detention into a tool for silencing
political opponents and use it as a back door way of disregarding the most basic human rights,
such as the right not to be arbitrarily arrested and detained and the right to prompt fair trial or
release. In Egypt, for example, thousands of people, the vast majority of them sympathizers,
members and suspected members of unauthorized Islamist groups, have been administratively
detained without charge or trial, some for as long as eight years. They have been held under
Article 3 of the Emergency Law, which has been in force without interruption since 1981.
In the face of the systematic use of administrative detention to violate human rights in particular
countries, AI has called for its abolition in that context.
Stopping the suffering
If international standards for fair trials had been fully incorporated into domestic laws and strictly
observed, the fate of the overwhelming majority of the victims of human rights violations cited in
this Focus, as well as hundreds of thousands of others over the years, could have been very
different. AI calls on every government in the region to end their systems of injustice.
For further information, please see State Injustice: Unfair Trials in the Middle East and North
Africa (April 1998, AI Index: MDE 01/02/98); or contact Middle East and North Africa Program,
Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton St, London WC1X 8DJ, United
Kingdom.
What is a fair trial?
There are several requirements without which no trial can be fair or seen to be fair. Trial
proceedings must be wholly guided from start to finish by fair trial standards established by the
12
international community. Such standards must be implemented by an independent and impartial
judiciary.
The right to a fair trial is clearly spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which
was adopted by the UN General Assembly and which every government in the world is expected
to respect. Article 10 states:
“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against
him.”
The right is guaranteed under Article 14 of the ICCPR, which provides:
“...everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and
impartial tribunal established by law.”
Specific rights include the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention; the right to be told
of your rights and reason for arrest; the right to have your family informed of arrest; the right to be
free from torture and to have torture allegations investigated; the right to be presumed innocent;
the right to public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law;
the right to humane conditions of detention and the right to defence.
What you can do
Please take the opportunity presented by the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights in 1998 to urge the governments of the Middle East and North Africa to ratify and
implement all relevant international treaties which guarantee clear safeguards for fair trial.
CAPTIONS
Cover: Egypt, 15 September 1997. A defendant awaits the military court’s verdict during a trial in
which 72 people were found guilty, and four were sentenced to death
© AP
Fatima Ramez Tafla was sentenced to death in 1991 by Kuwait’s Martial Law Court after a
one-hour trial. Although her sentence was later reduced to 10 years’ imprisonment, she has never
been allowed to appeal against her conviction or sentence
‘Ali Ammar (left), arrested in South Lebanon in 1986, is held in detention in Israel some seven
years after his sentence ended. The Israeli authorities admit that he and 21 other Lebanese
detainees are held as hostages for information about Israeli servicemen missing in action.
After a 15-minute trial beginning at 2am, Yusef al-Ra’i (above) and his cousin Shaher were
sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment by the Palestinian Authority’s State Security court
Left: Ahmad al-Hashimi, one of seven brothers who “disappeared” after their arrest by Iraqi
authorities in October 1980
Prisoner of conscience Mohammad al-Sayyid Ahmad Habib, one of scores of members of the
‘Muslim Brothers’ sentenced for up to five years by an Egyptian military court in 1995
AI’s summary of fair trial rights – available in Arabic from the address at the end of the article (AI
Index: MDE 1/5/98)