Emergency Law in Egypt
...c safety or national security according to the law. The role of the press is expressed in a certain section of the Constitution as follows: “The press shall exercise its true vocation freely and independently in the service of society through different means of expression. It shall interpret the trend of public opinion…the safeguard of the liberties, rights and public duties and respect for the sanctity of the private lives of citizens, as stipulated in the Constitution and defined by law” (Article 207). It is obvious that the Constitution guarantees the freedom of press and the prohibition of censorship on newspapers and magazines. Under the Military Decree No 1 of 1981, some crimes are apt to be transferred to the state security emergency courts. A number of instances affecting publication as well as the press are among the list of crimes enumerated under this decree. Following the introduction of these laws, “ approximately forty journalists were called before a State Security Prosecutor. After the conclusion of investigations, a number were required to pay bail, contrary to the press Law, which prohibits provisional detention of journalists for publishing crimes”(Emergency 2: pg 3). Military law No 1 of 1981 also vests the general prosecutor with powers similar to that of a judge, when investigating crimes against the emergency authorities. Inconceivably, no judicial supervision is allowed in relation to these investigations. Furthermore, the Military Law also imposes particular limits on journalists’ right to acquire information. No doubt, the ability to access different types of information is so important for both the press and the public to be able to understand events and take part in the decision-making process. Equally concerning is the fact that Military Decree No. 4 of 1992, which is one of the decrees issued in connection with the state of emergency, has been being used in the case of prosecuting Dr. Saad Eldin Ibrahim for having accepted foreign funds from the European Commission. The decree which allows the government to disregard the few safeguards already assured to NGOs under Egypt's NGO law was issued with the aim of enabling the government to bar the influx of funds to Islamist groups allegedly for the relief efforts.. Using this law selectively against Dr. Ibrahim and The Ibn Khaldun Center was objected to on multiple legal and moral grounds. A legal system parallel to the state of emergency and based on it was created avoiding many of the regular judiciary safeguards. The newly created system comprises state security courts, military courts, and emergency state security court sections. They all fall in varying degrees under the government executive branch’s control, thereby undermining the independence of the judiciary. Scores of people have been referred to these courts since 1992 under decrees issued by President Hosni Mubarak. “The U.S. State Department Country Human Rights Report and several human rights organizations estimate that thousands of political prisoners remain jailed in Egypt. Some have never been charged after years of incarceration, some like Dr. Ibrahim received unfair trials, and others are being held illegally in prison after serving out their complete sentences.” (State of emergency: Pg: 2). In this way, even family members have often been unable to know about the location of those imprisoned. Article (19) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (ICCPR) also guarantees “the right for every person to express his/her own opinion without restrictions.” The article provides that “ Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and statement; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through media” (Human Rights: pg.4). Clearly, the effects of the Emergency law reached out to journalists and writers, violating the Journalists’ syndicate law and the law of press. An example of such violations is represented in the case of writer Salah Abdel Mohsen, who was imprisoned by the State Security Court in Giza on charges of publishing an article describing alternative methods of Koranic interpretation. Similarly, the State Security Court of Matareyya passed on 5 March 2002, its ruling in the case known as the “Koranic Case” or the “Movement of Matereyya” (Case No 6050 of 2001). Eight people were accused (seven men and one woman) and presented before State Security Prosecution, convicted of abusing Islam in propagating fanatical ideas, under the Penal Code (article – 98). Two of the accused were sentenced to imprisonment for three years while the others were referred to retrial before another court. Another case known as the “Prophecy Claimant” and monitored by EOHR, and comprisisng twenty-one Sufi people was presented by the State Security Prosecution to the State Security Emergency Court in Nasr City for abusing Islam. In December 2001 the first and the sixth accused convicts were imprisoned for three years, while the rest were given one year jail sentence with stay of execution. EOHR monitored this case and advocated for “the freedom of thought and belief contained in the Constitution and International agreements to which Egypt is a party.” (State of emergency: Pg: 2) Another restriction heavily placed by the emergency law on civil and political participation, is one related to elections. The Emergency Law limits the right of the citizen to move and to meet. It vests broader powers to the administrative bodies to administratively detain citizens during elections. Police, during elections, systematically arrest candidates competing against the major political party (the NDP). In September 2000, during the legislative elections, 500 supporters of the independent and opposition candidates were arrested by the police. Another restriction relating to the decision of the executive authority disallows independent judicial supervision of the elections. “The dominance of the executive over the electoral process is demonstrated by its power over the candidacy applications, the lists of the voters, and its geographical control over the elections committees who oversee the voting process.” (State of emergency: Pg: 3). Democratized political and social climate will no doubt assist in establishing independent elections, and holding. One further case may also be cited here, when two hundred and thirty supporters of the Islamic Movement’s candidate (Jehan El Halafawy) were arrested on 27 June 2002 on the occasion of El Raml elections in Alexandria. In all, 101 cases were referred to the State Security Court on charges of assembling, causing disorder, and possessing pamphlets detrimental to public safety. “On 22 October 2002, the court sentenced 66 people to prison for three months and thirty five individuals were found to be innocent. In the same context, during the local election of 1997 and 2002 the security authorities also used the Emergency Law to pressure candidates within the opposition to not run in the elections.” (State of emergency: Pg: 4) The government further exploited the current international and regional context to justify renewing the state of emergency, in particular, claiming the emergence of a need to protect the citizens from terrorism. EOHR’s point of view is that such pretexts are untenable for two reasons. First, a country will need to protect the value of democracy in time of international unrest, and that focus should be made on respecting public rights and freedoms of citizens and that civic participation and international cooperation should be encouraged, in order to deal with political, economic and cultural challenges effectively. Second, since Egypt has witnessed no terrorist acts since 1997 there can be no need for justifying the exceptional measures to protect citizens from terrorism. It is evidenced that the use of exceptional laws has only been encouraging extremism so far. EOHR has continuously highlighted “the danger of the Emergency Law (NO. 162 of the 1958) and its corrosive effect on human rights in Egypt.” The emergency law has not only represented a threat to rights and freedoms, but also played a significant role in impeding the process of peaceful democratization in society. EOHR has outlined in its reports “the role of Emergency Law in usurping the role of the legislature and the judiciary and in undermining national constitutional rights and international human rights agreements to which Egypt is a party.” (EOHR Pg 3). The authorities have continuously been abusing the powers inherent in the Emergency law, when dealing in particular with political prisoners. EOHR has in response issued this report to examine and document the status of human rights in Egypt during the state of emergency. This report focused on the Egyptian government’s violations during the state of emergency, rather than on violations by other third parties. This report is divided into five categories, namely: "The Emergency Law and Human Rights in Egypt; The Emergency Law and its impact on Fair Trail standards;” The Emergency Law and its impact on the Freedoms of Opinion, Expression and Belief; The Emergency Law and its impact on the Rights to Assembly and Peaceful Demonstration; The impact of the state of Emergency on Managing Public Affairs.” (Emergency 1-pg:3) Additionally, there is a table of statistics attached to the report detailing violations for the period 1992-2002. Accordingly, it comprises the number of civilian cases which were transferred to military court jurisdiction and the journalists and civil activists that were sent before State Security Courts on the occasion of expressing their opinions. The executive authorities justified their decision in order to extend the validity of the emergency law on two grounds: the need for ensuring its existence particularly in the current international situation and for combating terrorism. EOHR denounces these justifications, arguing that dealing with the current international situation calls for application of democracy and ensuring public freedoms and civil participation in confronting confront political, economic and cultural challenges. Since no terrorist activity has been witnessed in Egypt since 1997 no justification of emergency based on terrorism will be warranted. EOHR has persistently been highlighting the dangers and negative impact of the Emergency law on international and domestic human rights in Egypt, since 1985, year of its establishment. Broad powers are granted to the executive through the emergency law by which restrictions are imposed on the freedoms of assembly, movement and residence. The law allows wide powers of arrest, search and detention deprived of the protections prescribed in the Criminal Procedures Code. It further empowers the Military Ruler to issue decrees having the effect of law. Consequently a parallel system of exceptional courts came into being permitting the violating of fair trial standards. Accordingly, EOHR calls for discontinuing the existence of the emergency law in Egypt, since the removal of such exceptional law will enable promoting the civil participation of Egyptian society in facing up to the current challenges. Lifting the emergency law would also terminate the numerous violations of civil and political rights accompanying its application throughout the past decades (Don’t renew the emergency law – Pg 1). No doubt that such hypothesis needs further supporting in order to stand as a defense for the end of the state of emergency declared in Egypt. Therefore, one has to take a closer look at the following cases, which have a very interesting experience concerning the impact of the emergency law in Egypt. One case reveals that “thousands of dissidents, particularly members of Islamist organizations such as the Muslim brotherhood, have been detained under the emergency law in recent years. Some have been held for years under continuously renewed administrative detention orders, without charge, trial or legal recourse. Torture by state security intelligence (SSI) forces during the detention is widespread.” (MEGALLY – 1). Under continuously renewed administrative detention orders, opponents of a possible war in Iraq before the invasion were arrested for years, without charge, trial or legal recourse. The state security intelligence (SSI) forces tortured them intensively during their detention. Similarly, opponents of a possible war in Iraq before the invasion were detained under the emergency law. “One of them, kamal Khalil, founder of the center for socialist studies in Cairo and an antiwar activist, went missing on February 18.” (Megally: 2). State security officers have privately told family members that he was detained - without knowing his whereabouts –and that he was suffering from asthma and recovering from recent major surgery; family members have been unable to deliver him urgently needed medicines (Megally: 1). Sabri al-Sammak, a film producer and anti-war activist, was arrested at home by State Security Intelligence forces on February 9 and is now administratively detained in solitary confinement at Mazr...