Egyptian authorities must immediately and unconditionally release photojournalist Mohammed Abu Zeid, popularly known as Shawkan, who has spent more than three years in detention and whose court hearing takes place on Saturday 10 December. The authorities must also drop all charges against him.

“Mohammed Abu Zeid was simply doing his job when he was arrested, taking photographs of the violent dispersal by security forces of a sit-in at the Rabaa al-Adaweya Square in Cairo in 2013 that led to horrific mass killings. His detention by the Egyptian authorities is clearly politically motivated, and he should not be held for another day – taking pictures is not a crime,” said Najia Bounaim, Deputy Director for Campaigns at Amnesty International’s Tunis Regional office.

“His detention by the Egyptian authorities is clearly politically motivated, and he should not be held for another day – taking pictures is not a crime.”

Najia Bounaim, Deputy Director for Campaigns

“The list of injustices perpetrated against Mohammed Abu Zeid are numerous. He has suffered torture and beatings in police custody, he was questioned by a prosecutor without a lawyer, and his lawyers were denied access to key documents related to the case, undermining their ability to prepare his defence. During his time in prison, he has received only sporadic medication for the Hepatitis C from which he suffers.”

An Egyptian court referred Mohammed Abu Zeid to a criminal court in August 2015 and extended his pre-trial detention, a breach of both Egyptian and international law.

Mohammed Abu Zeid features in Amnesty International’s annual Write for Rights Campaign. The organization considers him a prisoner of conscience, detained solely for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression, and is calling on the Egyptian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release him and drop all charges against him.

Background

Under Egyptian law, if detainees have not been sentenced within two years of pre-trial detention they must be released. International law and standards stress that detention before trial must be exceptional and may only be applied when required in specific circumstances, such as when it is established that there is a substantial risk of flight, harm to others or interference with the evidence or investigation that cannot be mitigated by other means.

The Sri Lankan authorities must take decisive action to stop torture and other ill-treatment, investigate complaints, and hold perpetrators accountable, Amnesty International said following the publication of the concluding observations by the UN Committee against Torture on Sri Lanka.

“If the Sri Lankan authorities are serious about breaking with the harrowing legacy of the country’s decades-long conflict, it must end impunity for torture and other acts of ill-treatment,” said Champa Patel, Amnesty International’s South Asia Director.

“If the Sri Lankan authorities are serious about breaking with the harrowing legacy of the country’s decades-long conflict, it must end impunity for torture and other acts of ill-treatment.”

Champa Patel, Amnesty International’s South Asia Director.

“Sri Lanka has taken important and positive steps. However, we also share the UN Committee against Torture’s alarm over Sri Lanka’s failure to prevent these crimes by the security forces and their concern that torture and other ill-treatment continue to take place. Impunity persists for perpetrators, as well as for those who have committed enforced disappearances, and deaths in custody and the use of coerced confessions continue to be reported.”

Lingering shadow of the conflict

In its assessment of Sri Lanka’s record on torture and other ill-treatment, the UN Committee against Torture said that the 26-year-long internal armed conflict continues to cast a long shadow over the country.

Despite promises, the authorities have failed to investigate serious human rights violations committed during the armed conflict.

Violations, however, were not limited to the legacy of the past. The Committee expressed concerns – shared by Amnesty International – that torture by police remains “a common practice,” with the absence of crucial safeguards in detention facilitating such abuse.

Amnesty International joins the UN Committee against Torture in calling on the Sri Lankan authorities to identify and prosecute perpetrators of unlawful killings, including of five Tamil students on Trincomalee beach and of 17 aid workers in the town of Muttur in 2006.  We support the call of the Committee for Sri Lankan authorities to protect the family of disappeared political cartoonist Prageeth Eknaligoda from harassment or reprisal as they seek truth and justice.

“The Sri Lankan government has previously made a commitment to address the widespread human rights violations that occurred during Sri Lanka’s armed conflict and in its immediate aftermath. But it has yet to lend those words substance by establishing the promised institutions, such as a judicial mechanism with a Special Counsel, a commission for truth, justice, reconciliation and non-Recurrence, and an office for reparations,” said Champa Patel.

Important but limited progress

Amnesty International is encouraged by some of the important steps Sri Lanka has taken, including the introduction of legislative and other measures designed to prevent torture and other ill-treatment.  However, these efforts have yet to be implemented effectively, leaving impunity for perpetrators in place.

The Sri Lankan authorities have also failed to act on previous observations made by the Committee against Torture. Safeguards are yet to be introduced to prevent torture and other ill-treatment by the security forces, and despite prohibitions in Sri Lanka’s Evidence Ordinance, courts continue to admit “confessions” obtained through torture and other ill-treatment into evidence.

The Committee expressed alarm that an official with previous command responsibility over a notorious site of torture and other ill-treatment was part of a delegation to meet with UN officials in Geneva.

“The Sri Lankan authorities need to match their words with actions.”

Champa Patel.

“The Sri Lankan authorities need to match their words with actions. The Committee against Torture has made a series of recommendations that should be acted on immediately. Safeguards should be put in place. Security forces have to know that torture and other ill-treatment will not be tolerated and that any survivors must obtain redress,” said Champa Patel.

Further recommendations

Amnesty International is also calling on the Sri Lankan authorities to take the following steps recommended by the Committee to prevent torture and other ill-treatment:

• End reprisals against victims and witnesses of these crimes
• Repeal the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act and abolish the regime of administrative detention including in the form of “rehabilitation”
• Ensure that all detainees are either promptly charged with recognizable offences and remanded by a court, , or else released
• Ensure that the Protection Division provided for by the Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crimes and Witnesses Act is an autonomous entity, independent of the police command structure
• Ensure that the Office of Missing Persons is given enhanced capacity, including forensic expertise, to allow it to carry out effective investigations
• Guarantee detainees prompt and unrestricted access to a lawyer from the time of arrest, including during interrogation
• Ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT), with a view to providing international oversight of places of detention as well as establishing an independent mechanism (National Preventive Mechanism) to monitor all places of detention
• Guarantee victims of torture and other ill-treatment effective reparations, including restitution, compensation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.

The condemning of 15 people to death by the Specialized Criminal Court today after a grossly unfair trial is a travesty of justice and a serious violation of human rights.

The men were among 32 people arrested across Saudi Arabia in 2013 and 2014 who were accused of spying for Iran. Fifteen others were sentenced to prison terms ranging from six months to 25 years, and two were acquitted.

The men were charged with a series of offences including “high treason”, with some facing several other ludicrous charges which should not be considered criminal offences, such as “supporting protests”, “spreading the Shi’a faith” and “possessing banned books and videos”.

“Sentencing 15 people to death after a farcical trial which flouted basic fair trial standards is a slap in the face for justice. Time and again, Saudi Arabia’s justice system has been proven to be incapable of ensuring fairness and justice,” said Samah Hadid, Deputy Director for Campaigns at Amnesty International’s Beirut regional office.

“The death penalty is cruel, inhuman and degrading in any circumstances but it is even more shocking when people are sentenced to death after blatantly unfair trials. These death sentences must be immediately quashed and the accused must either be re-tried in line with international standards without resorting to the death penalty, or released.”

“Time and again, Saudi Arabia’s justice system has been proven to be incapable of ensuring fairness and justice.”

Samah Hadid, Deputy Director for Campaigns 

Those convicted were all Saudi Arabian nationals except for one Iranian national who was sentenced to four years in prison. An Afghan national was one of the two men acquitted.

According to Taha al-Hajji, one of the lawyers who represented most of the accused, all 32 men arrested were detained without an arrest warrant and held for almost three months in incommunicado detention where they were repeatedly interrogated without a lawyer, heightening the risk that they could face torture and other ill-treatment. In many cases they only discovered the reason for their arrest during their interrogations.

Some told the court that they were threatened with solitary confinement and that they would be banned from having any contact with their families if they did not sign “confession” documents. They said they were told that if they refused to sign these “confessions” that their families would be imprisoned and locked in cells next to them.

After almost three years in detention without charge or trial the defendants were suddenly brought before the Specialized Criminal Court in Riyadh – Saudi Arabia’s secretive security and counter-terrorism court – in February 2016. Most of them attended their first session without any lawyers and the rest met their lawyers briefly for the first time in court. Some of the defendants had to prepare their defence themselves.

“The entire legal proceedings in this case have made a mockery of justice. The fact that the men were held incommunicado for three months, denied access to a lawyer during the interrogations, and that the court failed to adequately investigate the men’s claims that they were coerced to ‘confess’ makes this little more than a sham trial,” said Samah Hadid.

While the General Prosecutor had almost three years to build the case against the 32 defendants, their lawyers were given less than a month to prepare their defence after the first hearing and were denied crucial information to enable them to prepare a proper case.

The lawyers complained saying they needed more time since it was a very complex case with 32 defendants involved, however, the request was ignored by the judge. They were initially denied access to court documents and key evidence relied upon for the convictions, including the forced “confessions” of the men.

During the first session in February 2016, the 32 defendants were handed a list of charges that was nearly 100 pages long. Most of the defendants were accused of offences such as “high treason” for either setting up or joining a spy cell or meeting with Iranian intelligence and sharing military and security information with them.

However, some of the other charges listed against the men are not recognizably criminal offences under international standards. These include “supporting protests”, “spreading the Shi’a faith” for example by setting up a Shi’a centre in Mecca, “possessing banned books and videos”, “inciting the public to break allegiance to the ruler and harm his reputation and the reputation of the royal family” among other charges.

One defendant, who is among those sentenced to death, even faced charges for possessing articles written by Mikhlif al-Shammari a prominent human rights defender and advocate for Saudi Arabia’s Shi’a Muslim community who was sentenced to prison and 200 lashes for his activism.

It is not the first time a Saudi Arabian court has issued death sentences after an unfair mass trial. On 1 June 2016, 14 Shi’a Muslim men were sentenced to death by the Specialized Criminal Court after a trial which relied on “confessions” extracted through torture for a series of offences including among other things, taking part in violent protests in the Eastern Provinces in 2012.

Trials before the Specialized Criminal Court are shrouded in secrecy. Given the opaque procedures at these courts, in some cases simply being brought to trial appears to be enough grounds for judges to find the accused guilty.

In a letter submitted to the Specialized Criminal Court at the second session several of the lawyers said they would boycott the trial in protest the manner in which the trial was being conducted including the fact that they were not allowed to visit their clients, view evidence and prepare their defence adequately. The lawyers also objected to the “media war” waged against the defendants. The Saudi Arabian authorities do not allow any critical or independent media to operate in the Kingdom.

Responding to the news that the President of Myanmar has established a commission to investigate violence in Rakhine state since the 9 October attacks on three border police posts, Amnesty International said:

“An investigation into human rights violations in northern Rakhine state is long overdue. However, it will only be effective if it is independent, impartial and applies international human rights law and standards,” said Rafendi Djamin, Amnesty International’s Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

A credible investigation cannot take place under the cover of darkness, where only parties with an interest in the outcome can visit the affected areas.”

Rafendi Djamin, Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific

“Our findings point to serious human rights violations and a policy of collective punishment against the Rohingya Muslim population in northern Rakhine State. The authorities have gone beyond any reasonable response to the 9 October border police post attacks to target individuals, whole families and whole villages. It is difficult to imagine how a commission chaired by a former army general – and staffed with the Police Chief – can impartially investigate these allegations against the security forces.

“The Myanmar authorities should also grant independent observers, journalists and human rights monitors unfettered access northern Rakhine State. A credible investigation cannot take place under the cover of darkness, where only parties with an interest in the outcome can visit the affected areas.”

Background

On 1 December 2016, Htin Kyaw, the President of Myanmar, announced the establishment of an investigation commission to probe into the attacks on 9, 12 and 13 October 2016 as well as “Incidents of violent attacks in Maungtaw and their background situations and causes; Deaths, injuries, destruction and other damage; Measures taken for restoring stability and the rule of law; Verification of outside allegations during area clearance operations; Guarantee for security and human rights of the people ; Conflict prevention and humanitarian aids; Measures to avoid similar incidents in the future.”

The commission is supposed to report to the President by 31 January 2017.

Myint Swe has been appointed chair of the commission to investigate events in northern Rakhine State. Myint Swe is a former high-ranking general in the Myanmar army, and is one of Myanmar’s two Vice Presidents. He was nominated by the Commander in Chief of the Army for the Presidency, but was appointed Vice President after a Parliamentary vote.

Amnesty International has recorded the testimonies of Rohingya villagers who came under attack in recent weeks, both in Myanmar and across the border in Bangladesh, where thousands have fled to seek safety.

They told Amnesty International of a litany of human rights violations by Myanmar’s security forces, including indiscriminate firing on villagers from helicopter gunships, torching hundreds of homes, arbitrary arrests and the rape of women and girls.

Some of these testimonies can be read here.

Since 9 October, the authorities have restricted humanitarian access to the area, suspending regular humanitarian services and preventing an assessment of the needs of an estimated 30,000 newly displaced people.