Communications received

157. By letter sent on 19 January 2001, the Government replied to the urgent appeal sent on 15 January 2001. The Government stated that the details of the Professor Ibrahim's court case were public knowledge, that the hearings were being conducted with transparency, and that a number of local and international observers were being allowed to witness the proceedings. The Government informed the Special Representative that Professor Ibrahim was being tried by a court of law which comprised independent civil judges, and its verdict could be appealed.

158. By letter of 19 July 2001 the Government replied to the urgent appeal sent jointly

on 22 May 2001, with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. The Government asserted that the Supreme State Security Court consisted of civilian judges who enjoyed full independence and that all accused persons had the right to appeal against procedural

E/CN.4/2002/106 page 88

or substantive aspects of a judgement. The Government informed the Special Representative that the charges against Dr. Saad ed-Din Ibrahim were: receipt of funds from foreign bodies without obtaining authorization from the competent authority; criminal conspiracy with a view to bribery and appropriation, by deception and fraudulent means, of an amount of money belonging to the European Union through the presentation of falsified documents designed to mislead the Union into believing in the existence of a bogus project. The Government stated that none of the charges brought against Dr. Saad ed-Din Ibrahim were of a political nature or related to his right to freedom of opinion and expression. According to the Government, all the litigation procedures had been observed, the defence had had free and full access to all the documents in the case file and all the witnesses called by the defence had been summoned. The Government added that the court had had almost a full year in which to study the case file. The Government informed the Special Representative that no executive authority had the right to order the release of Dr. Saad ed-Din Ibrahim before a court judgment had been handed down.

159. By letter of 21 August 2001, the Government replied to the allegation transmitted jointly with the Special Rapporteur on torture on 10 August 2001. The Government stated that

Mr. Carsten Jurgensen had failed to draw up a report on the incident, which made its follow-up difficult in the absence of a written statement confirming the injuries, describing the assailants and indicating whether the persons present at the time were members of the police, so that they could be called to account, or whether their task was confined to supervision of the delivery of the ballot boxes. The Government affirmed that if Mr. Jurgensen had drawn up a report, it would have been possible to pursue the investigation and apprehend and prosecute the assailants if he had so desired. The Government stated that if Mr. Jurgensen had notified the Egyptian authorities of his intention to visit the electoral commissions, a special guard would have been assigned to protect him.

160. By letter of 23 August 2001, the Government replied to the urgent appeal sent on 8 August 2001 concerning the case of Mrs. Sammah Hamid Ali. The Government affirmed that Mrs. Sammah Hamid Ali was the mother of a citizen called Yassir Fathi El Bab Abd El Monem Sha'ban who had previously been indicted on 18 counts of theft and affray and who had recently assaulted a citizen by the name of Abd El Rahman Awd Timam. According to the Government, the Helwan police, acting on a warrant issued by the Department of Public Prosecutions, arrested Yassir Fathi El Bab Abd El Monem Sha'ban, who confessed to the crime. The Department of Public Prosecutions ordered that he should be detained pending further investigation. The Government stated that the inquiries showed that the allegations which Mrs. Sammah Hamid Ali had made against the Helwan police were totally unfounded and that she had made those complaints in order to discredit police officers in the hope of preventing legal action being taken against her son.

E/CN.4/2002/106 page 89

Observations

161. The Special Representative thanked the Government of Egypt for the detailed replies provided. Despite the fact that no reply from the Government was received concerning the case of Ms. Nawal El Saadaoui, the Special Representative had been informed that on 30 July 2001 the case was dismissed for procedural reasons. The Special Representative would like to be kept informed of the latest developments concerning the case of Mrs. Sammah Hamid Ali. Furthermore, the Special Representative would like to express particular concern over the case of Dr. Saad ed-Din Ibrahim and his 27 co-defendants, particularly at the use of the State Security Court instead of courts of ordinary jurisdiction, the limited access for defence lawyers to prosecutorial documents and the speed with which the verdict was reportedly reached. The Special Representative considers that the conviction of these members of civil society for their human rights activities will have a chilling effect on the activities of other human rights defenders in Egypt. The Special Representative notes, with particular concern, the use of laws that could restrict access to resources for the promotion and protection of human rights and could be used for penalizing human rights defenders for soliciting, receiving and utilizing funds for this human rights activity. Finally, the Special Representative recalls that, in a letter

dated 27 April 2001, she indicated her interest in visiting Egypt and hopes that the Government will give positive consideration to this request.