Source: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/wgad/10-2014.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:52:30+00:00

Document:
12 individuals v. Egypt, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 10/2014, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/WGAD/2014/10 (2014).
The Government has not responded.
(e) When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law for reasons of discrimination based on birth; national, ethnic or social origin; language; religion; economic condition; political or other opinion; gender; sexual orientation; or disability or other status, and aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human rights (category V).
4. The present case concerns the arrest, detention and conviction of 12 persons for their participation in demonstrations against the deposing of Mohamed Morsi as president by the military on 3 July 2013.
• Assayed Saber Ahmed Suleiman, who is an Egyptian national and usually lives in Suez.
Article 7/A of the Code of Military Justice, which creates jurisdiction over crimes committed against military personnel carrying out their official duties.
7. The eight men were each sentenced to a one-year term of imprisonment by the Military Court of Suez on 24 July 2013.
• Mahmoud Abdel Fattah Abbas, who is an Egyptian national and lives in Suez.
• 316 bis of the Penal Code, which makes stealing at night by two or more persons carrying weapons an aggravated offence.
10. On 3 September 2013, the Military Court of Suez reportedly sentenced Mr. Atta to life imprisonment, and the other three, Mr. Abdel Hamid, Mr. Abdel Zaher and Mr. Abbas, to 15 years of imprisonment.
11. All of the 12 persons denied the charges and maintained that they had been fabricated. Following their conviction, they were imprisoned in Jalaa Prison and were then transferred to Burj Al Arab prison on 27 October 2013, where they currently remain in detention.
12. The source submits that the detention of the 12 persons is arbitrary, and that the trial of civilians by military courts constitutes per se a gross violation of article 14 of the Covenant, which guarantees the right to “a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.
13. The Working Group addressed a communication to the Government on 22 January 2014, requesting it to respond to the allegations made by the source. The Working Group requested the Government to provide it with detailed information about the current situation of the 12 individuals and to clarify the legal provisions justifying their continued detention. The Working Group stated that it would also appreciate the Government providing details regarding the conformity of its trials with international law.
14. The Government has not responded to the communication from the Working Group.
16. The case concerns the arrest, detention and conviction of 12 persons for their participation in demonstrations against the deposing of Mohamed Morsi as president by the military on 3 July 2013. Eight individuals reportedly were arrested by military forces while demonstrating in front of a public building on 4 July 2013, were charged by a military prosecutor with various offences and were sentenced by a military court to a one-year term of imprisonment. Four individuals reportedly were arrested on 14 August 2013, also while demonstrating in front of a public building, and charged by a military prosecutor with the same offences and two further property offences. Of those four individuals, one was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the other three to 15 years of imprisonment.
17. All of the 12 persons denied the charges and maintained that they had been fabricated. The source further submitted that their detention was arbitrary.
20. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has interpreted articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, on fair trial, so that military courts can never have jurisdiction over civilians, stating that “the only purpose of military courts shall be to determine offences of a purely military nature committed by military personnel” and that “military courts should not in any circumstances whatsoever have jurisdiction over civilians”.7 The right to a fair trial is non-derogable in the African system.
24. The case before the Working Group is clear. The 12 individuals were tried before a military tribunal after taking part in public demonstrations, which amounts to violations not only of their right to freedom of opinion and expression but also of their right to a fair trial. The detention of the 12 persons in the present case is in breach of articles 9, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as articles 9, 14 and 19 of the Covenant. The Working Group thus holds that their detention falls within categories II and III of the categories applicable to the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.
The detention of Mohamed Essayed Ali Rasslan, Mohamed Mohamed Abdo Abdullah, Ahmed Hussein Ali, Ahmed Mohamed Tohamy, Motaz Ahmed Motwali, Mohamed Mohamed Abduh, Assayed Mohamed Ezzat Ahmed, Assayed Saber Ahmed Suleiman, Ahmed Hassan Fawaz Atta, Mohamed Abdel Hamid Abdel Fattah Abdel Hamid, Sayyed Ali Abdel Zaher and Mahmoud Abdel Fattah Abbas is in breach of articles 9, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls within categories II and III of the categories applicable to the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.
26. Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the Government of Egypt to remedy the situation of the 12 persons and to bring it into conformity with the standards and principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
27. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the adequate remedy is to immediately release the 12 persons and to accord them an enforceable right to compensation in accordance with article 9, paragraph 5, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The duty to provide them with compensation for the violations of their rights rests upon the State and should be enforceable before the national courts.
4 CCPR/CO/76/EGY , para. 16.
7 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, “Principles and guidelines on the right to a fair trial and legal assistance in Africa” (2003), principle L (a) and (c).
8 Durand and Ugarte v. Peru, 16 August 2000, § 117. See also Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru, 18 August 2000.
9 Ergin v. Turkey (No. 6), No. 47533/99, 2006, para. 45.
10 See, for example, Human Rights Committee communication No. 1813/2008, Akwanga v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 22 March 2011 (CCPR/C/101/D/1813/2008).
11 See the Working Group’s deliberation No. 9 concerning the definition and scope of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under customary international law (A/HRC/22/44).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 117
 v. 
 v. 
 v.