NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Page 207 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Page 208 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Defendings the Universality of Human Rights

At the first international conference of the Arab human rights movement, held in Casablanca, Morocco, from 23rd to 25th April 1999, the final declaration contained an assessment of the political situation in Arab countries, dividing them into three groups. As of today, the first group, Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf countries, have no “modern judicial structure, with neither constitution nor parliament;” they still reject most of the international human rights treaties and instruments. Invoking their cultural and religious particularities as a reason, the governments of these countries deny any possibility of action, however limited, to human rights defenders.

The second group is made up of countries which, like Syria, Iraq or Libya, have adhered to various covenants and treaties but which, in practice, fail to implement most of their regulations. The restrictions on freedoms are so tight and the human rights situation is such that, it is nearly impossible to carry out any investigating and monitoring activities in the human rights field. Human rights organizations and the rest of civil society can only operate underground or from exile and, often, putting their own and the life of their relatives at risk. While states in the first group usually reject universality under religious pretexts, in the second group, governments often resort to the usual nationalistic, all-Arab rhetoric, as well as to the need for national unity, even though, in some cases, they are no longer holding back from invoking religion.

The third group is not exempt from human rights violations: torture, lack of independence of the judiciary, and censorship, to give just a few examples, are routine. However, it can be argued that the deterioration of the human rights situation in these countries has intensified the most during the period covered by the present report (Egypt, Tunisia, Autonomous Palestinian Territories.) Particularly active in these countries, human rights defenders have suffered the most from these increased violations, as we shall see in the Observatory’s urgent appeals. These three categories are obviously somewhat simplistic, as each country has its own particularities. Yet, within each group, similarities between national policies are a cause for concern.

On 9th December 1998, after many years of stalling, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Only one day earlier, 26 Member-States published an “interpretative declaration” announcing that, while they would support the existing draft, they would only implement its provisions in as much as they agree with their own national legislations. Signed by 14 Member-States of the Arab League, the interpretative declaration was presented on behalf of all the signatories by the Ambassador of Egypt to the United Nations. While it has no legal

Page 209 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

value in international law, the declaration lays bare the motives of these governments, intent on restricting the freedom of action of human rights defenders as much as possible.

A few months later, in May 1999, the Arab Covenant against Terrorism, adopted by the Arab interior ministers in 1998, eventually came into force after it was ratified by seven countries. Extraditing political opponents convicted of terrorism thus became legal, although this had long been a common extra-judicial practice among some Arab states. In the name of the fight against terrorism, which is perfectly legitimate under some conditions, this covenant took cooperation between national repressive policies one step further. First, the definition of what constitutes a terrorist act is so wide that, in some extreme cases, it can be interpreted to designate peaceful, dissident acts deemed dangerous by the State. In addition, in this region, the independence of the judiciary remains a very relative notion. According to the provisions of this new covenant, Mr. Rachid Mesli, a human rights defender who was convicted in Algeria, would have been unable to find refuge in any other Arab country.

Another reason for concern during this period was the hasty adoption of a new Association Law in Egypt and the failure of the Palestinian authorities to enact a similar law, although it had been adopted by the Palestinian Legislative Council. In both cases, the authorities clearly revealed that their actual goal was to restrict human rights Non-Governmental Organizations, hinting that they threaten national security.

Harassment against human rights defenders and their families, a practice culminating in Tunisia, or the ban on human rights work as in Iraq and Syria, are thus the most radical and visible tips of a systematic policy of distrust and repression against human rights defenders. At first sight, such policy seems contradictory since, although all these countries have opted for economic liberalization, at the same time, they oppose any genuine effort at political liberalization. Quite on the contrary, they emphasize their own religious and cultural particularities in order to reject the universality of human rights and to deny the indestructible link between civil and political rights and social and economic development. Therefore, the fact that human rights defenders, however sparse and powerless, are the main targets of these policies is not surprising, for they bear witness to the indivisibility of all human rights and convey a sense of universality.

Driss El Yazami

Page 210 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

From Khémaïs Ksila, the Vice-Chair of the Tunisian Human Rights League, who was released from two years in detention on 22nd September 1999

Gratitude and the duty to testify

After being arrested on 29th September 1997, I was sentenced to a total of three years’ imprisonment on 11th February 1998, for «slandering public order and the authorities, circulating false news likely to disrupt public order, and inciting the citizens to violate the laws of the country» (Criminal Law, Art. 42-51.) The court of appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the verdict without giving me the opportunity to raise my own defence. All the trial monitors who were able to follow the proceedings corroborated that I had been denied the right to a fair trial, although this right is enshrined in international covenants ratified by Tunisia.

This patently unfair trial only followed a long period of harassment and threats (I was dismissed from my job on 6th February 1996, and my passport was confiscated on 18th August 1996). The aims of such repressive acts were, on the one hand, to curb the enjoyment of my rights to freedom of opinion and expression as citizen and human rights defender, and, on the other hand, to undermine the Tunisian Human Rights League, whose margin of manoeuvre was already extremely narrow.

Throughout the two years I spent behind bars, my wife, Fatma, and our three children experienced constant harassment and all kinds of pressures. Yet, all of us were fortunate enough to benefit from a steady advocacy effort, both at national and international levels.

Heartening news of such widespread concern on my behalf reached me in my prison cell, as well as the decision, by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, to qualify my detention as arbitrary.

Advocacy on my behalf was mainly organised by NGOs. I am all the more indebted to them that, thanks to their unwavering action, just a few days before I was released on parole, I had the great honour to be nominated to the 1999 Sakharov Prize of the European Parliament, along with five other people.

I have at last been released from jail and, although I have been returned to my family and friends, once again, I have to face what Taoufik Ben Brik referred to as the “human bars of an invisible prison.” Yet, I shall not let this affect my happiness nor, and even more so, my feeling of gratitude.

Page 211 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Fatma, our children and myself would like to extend our warmest and affectionate thanks to you all; to all the staff and members of FIDH, OMCT and of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders; through these organizations, we would also like to thank the Tunisian Committee for the Respect of Freedoms and Human Rights; the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network; the Arab Human Rights Program; and all the Arab organizations for the protection of lawyers. We are especially thankful to Amnesty International for its relentless action, to the French, Belgian and Swiss Human Rights Leagues, to International Prison Watch, to CETIM (Europe-Third World Centre), to the Inter- national Commission of Jurists, and to the Service International des Droits de l’Homme. I have been deeply impressed by the advocacy efforts made by African human rights organizations, and by the campaigns launched in Canada and the United States by human rights networks, in particular, Human Rights Watch and the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights.

I am also greatly indebted to the work of many European Parliamentarians of all nationalities, and of elected officials in Belgium, Canada, France, Switzerland and the United States.

To all of them, and to all our friends throughout the world, in the South and in the North, from Africa to Scandinavia, we would like to express our warmest thanks.

Thanks to this huge, international advocacy effort, inter-governmental organizations, and in particular the relevant UN mechanisms, have adopted fair recommendations and positions on our behalf and with regards to the human rights defenders and the victims of repression in our country. Those behind the official repression have thus been clearly discredited. In particular, I would like to take this opportunity to convey my deepest consideration to Ms. Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

These efforts will undoubtedly continue with unswerving determination and in the same spirit until the restoration of our labour rights, the rights to freedom of movement, to freedom of communication, the right to enjoy a peaceful and stable family life, and the freedom to express different, non-conformist views; In my opinion, these rights constitute the sine qua non conditions for the enjoyment of citizenship.

Yet, gratitude is not enough, and one has the duty to testify. Anybody who has been a victim of imprisonment and of prison harshness will bear physical and psychological scars for life. This painful experience will have long-lasting consequences on their economic well-being and on their family life. This is precisely why we all carry the duty to testify publicly. As far as I am concerned, I pledge to fulfil this obligation, for I am convinced that exposing the harsh, insecure and violent conditions prevailing in Tunisian prisons is an utmost necessity.

Page 212 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Prison in itself is a painful punishment because it deprives one of one’s freedom. In the laws of democratic countries - those that respect their people - prison sentences are to be avoided in the case of those usually referred to as “political offenders.” Likewise, these same countries try not to resort systematically to prison sentences or, at least, they try to enforce alternative punishments against those usually referred to as common criminals.

Unfortunately, in countries like ours, the situation is quite different. The main characteristics of our laws and regulations are their under-development, their arbitrariness, and, in many cases, their ruthless cruelty. The deprivation of one’s freedom is thus exacerbated by a lack of prison structure, an inconceivable over-crowding, and the use of ill-treatment and torture to such an extent that the growing death toll in custody, detention facilities and prisons is a deep cause for concern.

The Tunisian government clearly disregards its international obligations and, in particular, the UN regulations regarding the minimum standards on the treatment of prisoners. By the same token, the government fails to respect the legal and administrative regulations which it has adopted.

Denouncing detention conditions in Tunisia also works as a reminder that, throughout history and across the world, authoritarian and arbitrary regimes, those who reject the rule of law, were wrong to believe that, thanks to prison, suffering, and humiliation, they would be able to curb, eradicate or destroy their opponents and their victims, especially among outspoken activists and the defenders of freedom and democracy.

For many years, our country, Tunisia, has experienced serious violations of the most basic freedoms and human rights. The situation keeps deteriorating as the ruling authorities have strengthened their position by tightening their all-powerful and unrelenting grip on the Tunisian society and all its institutions.

Violating the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, suppressing human rights defenders, and disparaging intelligence while promoting the most subservient forms of conformism and allegiance, all this is a result of the authoritarian control of the country by the Tunisian government. This control is based on coercion and the instilling of fear in a society whose citizens have been reduced to the rank of subjects.

Determined and committed to carry on our peaceful and civil fight, within the broadest possible union of the democratic and human rights movements in Tunisia, I am convinced that, with your help and support, we will see political and institutional reforms in our country. These are crucial to ensure that, at long last, the Tunisian people fully enjoy their rights to freedom, democracy and the effective protection of their human rights.

Page 213 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

We will have, soon I hope, opportunities to meet and exchange views. Much more than with these few words, you will then appraise the strength of the affectionate ties of respect and gratitude which our common struggle and your spirit of solidarity have established between us.

Khémaïs Ksila

Page 214 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Algeria

The pervasive climate of violence has had serious consequences for the freedom of action of human rights defenders. Recent events have been marked by attacks on the freedom of association and harassment of certain human rights defenders and those close to them.

Even though the legal statutes of the National Association of the Families of the Disappeared (ANFD) conform to national legislation and their application deposited in August 1998, they have still to be granted legal status by the Ministry of the Interior. The ANFD emerged during the Summer of 1998 documenting more than 4000 cases of forced disappearance in the country.

Faced by official denial, the families formed “SOS Disparus,” a committee operating under the Algerian League for Human Rights (LADDH). Having been hushed up for many years, the issue of forced disappearances exploded onto the political agenda in the Summer of 1998.

Since that time, the Families of the Disappeared have gathered every week in Algeria at the headquarters of the National Observatory for Human Rights (an official institution) and in front of the wilayas (the prefecture) in cities like Oran or Constantine.

In the capital, several attempts to gather have been dispersed by force and in September 1999, the Algerian press responded to the threats made to the Vice President of the ANFD. The threats were made to Ms Kouidri following her meeting with several of the families of the disappeared with President Abdelaziz Bouteflika during the referendum campaign on the Civil Agreement Law. After listening to the families, the President asked them to close the file on forced disappearance and to stop their public demonstrations.

th Moreover, on 10 July 1999, during the Organisation of African Unity the authorities banned NGOs from holding a parallel meeting. Finally, lawyers working for victims of human rights abuses are subjected to harassment or intimidation like Mr Mesli.

Page 215 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Sentencing of the lawyer and close family allowed to attend the hearing Rachid Mesli presided over by Mr. Amieur. u Mr Mesli was questioned on the nature of his Mr Mesli, lawyer and human rights defender, relations with his clients, notably those who the was illegally confined at the end of July 1996 for police were looking for in the months of June several days at an unknown location. Following and July 1995. pressure from human rights organisations he was He had to constantly underline the purely eventually brought before the courts. Files, professional character of his contacts with his including clients being prosecuted for charges clients, and that he had carried out his work with relating to freedom of expression, found by the the laws in force and notably the Law of the police during searches of his offices and both “Rahma” of February 1995 - authorising persons his home and that of his parents, were returned sought by the police to surrender themselves to some days later. the authorities accompanied by their lawyers. His Mesli, visibly in a state of shock and bearing lawyers laid out all the violations of the right to a marks on his face, both suggestive of ill treatment, fair trial that had occurred over the different sta- was charged with belonging to a terrorist orga- ges of his case including: the conditions of his nisation. He was brought before the investigating arrest and detention, the lack of follow up from th judge of the Rouiba Court on 10 August 1996. requests of the defence and obtaining evidence His lawyers were not allowed to support him with the use of torture. during the hearing. Concerns raised by the Mr Mesli was given a three year sentence for defence over his kidnapping, and the need for belonging to a terrorist armed group in flagrant an expert medical opinion to confirm the indi- violation of international human rights instru- cations of torture, were ignored. He was held in ments most notably the right to a fair trial. One solitary confinement in El Harrach Prison for month before the sentence ended he was given a th nearly a year and then transferred to Tizi Ouzou presidential pardon on 15 July 1999. th prison. He was finally judged on 15 July 1997 before a criminal court. The court found Mr. Mesli not guilty of the original charges, but found Obstacles to the freedom of him guilty of being an apologist and encouraging u association1 terrorism. He was sentenced to three years in prison and three years of privation of his civil On 10th July 1999, the Algerian government rights and a fine. banned a meeting of human rights defenders held Mr Mesli’s lawyers appealed on the basis that the in parallel with the summit of the Organisation of charges had never been part of the original char- African Unity (OAU) organised in Algiers. This th ges. He then had to wait until 20 June for a new meeting was organised by the Algerian League hearing. for Human Rights (ALHR), member of FIDH, to The Observatory gave legal support mandating three lawyers to Mr Mesli. The process was held in restricted conditions with only a few journalists 1 See press release 12th July 1999

Page 216 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

gather human rights defenders from NGOs from Khelili had received a two year prison sentence several African countries with senior for contempt of court. The initial charge of representatives of international organisations. “membership of a terrorist organisation”, was None of the organisations, with the exception of reformulated as “non reporting of terrorism”. the Vice-president of the Burundian Association The Observatory considers that this sentence is for the Defence of the Rights of Prisoners, who simply another act of intimidation against was held for several hours by Algerian security Mr Khelili. services at the airport, was able to get a visa. In addition no action was taken over the The room, reserved and paid for in the hotel Dar complaint brought by Mr Khelili over the exces- Diafa, for the meeting was requisitioned at the sive violence used against his son Karim Khelili, last moment by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. during his arrest in February 1998. The National The perimeter of the hotel was closed down by Observatory of Human Rights stated that Karim the police. Moreover, the public meeting which Khelili suffered no ill treatment. was supposed to have been held in a private room was equally banned. On 11th July, in the early afternoon, many families of the disappeared, who were to attend the opening of the defenders meeting, were prevented from holding a public march in Algiers. Holding parallel human rights defenders summits, at the margins of larger international and regional conferences, is an established practice at the sessions of the majority of intergovernmental regional and international bodies.

Further intimidation of Mr u Khelili and his family2 The two sons of Mr Khelili, lawyer and President of the National Union of Algerian Lawyers, were temporarily arrested in February 1998. Both were threatened with torture and Mr Karim Khelili, was actually subjected to ill treatment. Mr Khelili was informed that his son Farid

2 See Annual Report 1997-1998 of the Observatory

Page 217 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Bahrain

Four years after the accession of Bahrain to independence in 1971, the Head of State, the Emir, dissolved the newly elected Assembly and suspended article 65 of the Constitution (1971) which regulated legislative power. Since then, all powers has been concentrated at the hands of the Emir and his Cabinet; for example, judicial power is placed under the direct control of the Department of Secret Services. The exercise of fundamental freedoms is conditioned by a particularly repressive legislative and legal arsenal.

The law on National Security (1974) permits the arrest and sentencing, up to three years, of all persons suspected of endangering national security, without charges or trial. The restrictive orders of the Penal Code of 1976 enables the Security Court of the State to reprimand all acts of ‘defamation against the State, against its economic and social system and which weaken national unity’.

In these conditions, human rights defenders are unable to freely exercise their activities and are forced into exile. The only persons who dare, individually, to defend Human Rights in Bahrain (intellectuals, academics, journalists, lawyers...) are systematically harassed (phone tapping, following/ surveillance, confiscation of materials, campaigns of slander...). They have to bear wrongful dismissal, arrests and imprisonment, or even forced exile with their families, with the confiscation of Bahrain nationality and impossibility of returning to Bahrain. As refugees abroad, the defenders continue to be surveyed by the Bahrain secret services, and pressure is exerted on certain governments in order to create obstacles to their work in their new countries of residence.

Page 218 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Egypt

The attitude of the Egyptian government over the period highlighted not only a failure to guarantee the freedom of action of human rights defenders, but actually an active will to protect themselves against the action of human rights defenders.

During the adoption of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders by the General Assembly of the United Nations, 9th December 1998, Egypt took the floor in the name of the 26 states to express reservations on the text and laid out an interpretation that placed national legislation over international norms.

In 1999, Egypt replaced already restrictive laws dating from 1964, with new even more repressive association laws.

The Egyptian Organisation of Human Rights has tried since its creation to get permission to carry out its work. While neither explicitly refused nor expressly forbidden, the organisation and its activities are tolerated.

This legal no man’s land allows the authorities to increase pressure on the organisation. The EOHR is following the new administrative procedures so that it can have a clear legal status.

Contrary to the statements of the authorities at the international level, civil society has been paralysed by the new law. The wording of the legislation is vague and gives the authorities wide powers to control the internal workings of organisations. They can control their creation and, registration, they can reject candidates for managing bodies and dissolve them for infraction.

As the previous laws in force did not allow organisations to register as associations, all were registered as private businesses and consequently will be forced to re-register as associations.

The number that will obtain the new status and the time the process will take is uncertain. For the moment the NGO sector is the target of a campaign of defamation on the part of a largely state controlled media. They are increasingly calling for restrictions on their activities. In 1999 the authorities refused to allow two human rights conferences the “first international Conference on the Arab

Page 219 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Movement for Human Rights in the Arab World” (organised by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights) and a Conference on “The Legal System in the Arab Region and the Challenges of the 21st Century (organised by the Centre for the Independence of Justice and Legal Professions). Both were forced to take place respectively in Morocco and Lebanon.

Page 220 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Search and harassment of the EOHR, Hafez Abu Se’da and the order to human rights NGOs3 arrest EOHR lawyer Mustafa Zidan by the At- u torney General of the Higher State Security The Observatory was informed by the Arab Prosecution Program for Human Rights Activists, a member On 1st December 1998, the Higher State Security of the OMCT network, of the illegal search of the Prosecution ordered the imprisonment of Hafez offices and questioning of activists of the above Abu Se’da, the Secretary General of the Egyptian mentioned organisation in a dawn raid. Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) for It appears that on 15th October 1998, at around 15 days pending investigations in relation to case 3:00 a.m., members of the police illegally entered n° 695/1998-state security investigations. In his the headquarters of the APHRA and questioned capacity as the EOHR Secretary General, Hafez an employee about the activities of the organisa- Abu Se’da was facing following charges: accepting tion. It appears that the police were particularly funds from a foreign country with the aim of interested in a planned solidarity event in Cairo fulfilling acts that would harm Egypt; for Tunisian human rights defenders. disseminating false information abroad, that The police returned in the morning of 16th would harm the country’s national interests and October 1998 and questioned the administra- receiving donations without obtaining permission tive Director over the solidarity event. They from the competent authorities. Hafez Abu Se’da remained in the building until 10:00 p.m. was originally called as a witness based on a re- Another member of the Police returned on 17th port made by journalist Mostafa Bakri, editor-in- October to ask further questions. chief of Al-Osbou’ newspaper, and on inquiries According to the information APHRA has suffered made by the State Security Investigations. no further acts of harassment. The journalist filed a report to the Public Prosecutor in which he accused the EOHR of issuing a report on human rights violations in Arrest of the the Secretary Egypt in return for money from foreign u General of the Egyptian governments seeking to undermine Egypt. The Organisation for Human incidents refer to a report published by EOHR Rights (EOHR)4 on an incident in the Al-Kosheh village which documented gross violations committed by the The Observatory was informed by the Egyptian authorities. According to the report, following a Organisation for Human Rights, a member of murder in the village, collective punishment was both OMCT and the FIDH, of the detention, as of meted out to the villagers: this included hundreds 1st December 1998, of the Secretary General of of arbitrary arrests and the use of torture on men, women and children. Following the publication of the report, an article 3 See urgent appeal EGY 003/9810/OBS 072 appeared in the London based newspaper the 4 See urgent appeals EGY 004/9811/OBS 085; EGY Sunday Telegraph alleging that the attack was part 004/9811/ OBS 085.01; EGY 004/9811/OBS 085.02 of a campaign of religious discrimination on the

Page 221 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

part of the Authorities (against the Christian The Observatory put together and dispatched an Minority known as the Copts). It further wrongly urgent international mission to visit Egypt. The implied that members of the village were crucified. mission was able to document the inhuman Following accusations of treason in Egyptian treatment inflicted on Hafez Abu Se’da. The fifteen newspapers, the EOHR immediately issued a days of detention revealed an intention to statement that the crucifixions had not taken place undermine his dignity. He was placed in the and any suggestion linking the violence to religious disciplinary area of Tora prison, he was put in a action was not part of their report. cell of two metres by two, his head was shaved As regards to the allegation of foreign funding of and he was forced to wear prisoners clothes. the study, the EOHR has categorically stated that Moreover, his lawyers were denied access to their the report was not funded from external sour- client. On 6th December 1998, the Higher State ces. A check for US$ 25,703 from the British Security Prosecution finally ordered the release Embassy, on behalf of the Human Rights of Hafez Abu Seada, the Secretary General of the Committee of the British House of Commons, was Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) given to EOHR for a project for women and on a bail of EP 500. th handicapped persons. The same embassy funded On 9 December, Zidan was heard by the the same project in 1996 without comment on prosecution service and freed under caution. the part of the authorities. The Observatory reminds that, in August 1998, Following the arrest of the Secretary General, the M.Hafez Abu Se’da was arrested during more than Attorney General of the Higher State Security 24 hours, accused of not having payed a 1500 Prosecution then ordered the arrest of EOHR’s Egyptian pounds fine. The policemen admitted lawyer Mustafa Zidan, the lawyer who carried out afterwards that it was a mistake. The Observatory the mission to investigate the events of Al-Kosheh underlines the fact that this arrest intervened just village. In the morning of 1 December 1998, a after the EOHR had published a report dealing force from the State Security Investigations went with the violations of the rights of detainees in to his house but he was not there. Egyptian prisons. The detention of the Secretary General of the Until the present day, there are no conclusions EOHR and the detention order on Mustafa Zidan concerning the investigations regarding the two are clearly aimed at sanctioning the activities of members of the EOHR. this organisation which just publicly denounced the use of violence by the Egyptian police. The Observatory then received further reports that Adoption of a Restrictive Hafez Abu Seada may be being held in Al-Ihtyat Law5 Prison, which has, in addition to unsanitary li- u ving conditions, a very poor human rights record President Hosni Mubarak signed into law “on where prisoners regularly face inhuman treatment and are exposed to physical injury. All efforts by the EOHR and the family to obtain a 5 See urgent appeals EGY 001/9905/OBS 032; EGY visit permit failed. 001/9905/OBS 032.01

Page 222 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Associations and Private Institutions”, which already weakened civil society. restricts the work of human rights organisations Professional Unions (Law 100/1993), political [- see below-]. The law was adopted by the parties (Law 40/1997) and the press, are already Parliament on the night of 27th May 1999. A under heavy restrictions. In the space of a year, copy of the law appeared on the 1st June in the four journalists have been sent to prison, Official Gazette. independent newspapers closed and magazines The law, is very vaguely formulated giving the forbidden to print. The rights to publish are authorities a great deal of latitude to control the subject to further restrictions of the law 3/1998, creation, registration and suspension of associa- which gives power over new licences to the Cabi- tions (articles. 3, 6 et 8), reject candidates for net. All these laws are based on the “emergency the administrative council (article. 34), annul law” (in force since October 1981) which grants decisions, dissolve them for infraction (art. 23) considerable power to the Executive, and which, – infractions which are very vaguely defined (art. it seems, has effectively become the new consti- 42). In addition, the law makes it possible to turn tution. down funds coming from outside the country (art. 17) and equally to join international networks. In short, the law allows the authorities to maintain Intimidation of the a tight grip over the activities of civil society. u Sudanese Human Rights The text took no account of the repeated concern Organisation6 for civil society. Outside the dialogue between the government and Egyptian NGOs, the authorities The Observatory was informed by the Sudanese introduced very restrictive amendments. It Victims of Torture group and the Regional appears that outside the dialogue between the Program for Human Rights Activists, both government and Egyptian NGOs, the authorities members of the OMCT network, of the concerns introduced very restrictive amendments, so much over the potential closure of Sudanese Human that, not only did the government present the text Rights Organisation and the possible extradition as a compromise, but it is even more restrictive of its Secretary General. than existing association legislation. During the According to the information, the Egyptian Fo- last meeting of the United Nations Human Rights reign Minister Amr Moussa sent a letter to his Sub Commission, the Egyptian represen-tative, in Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail his right to respond to the intervention of the saying the SHRO was operating without a licence Observatory, stated that Egypt had reconsidered and had been asked to stop. This information the law and once again justified the ratification of originally appeared in Egyptian newspapers on the law which contravenes the UN Covenant on 11th August but was confirmed by the Sudanese Civil and Political Rights and other regional and Ambassador Ahmed Abd el-Halim Mohamed to international instruments ratified by Egypt. Egypt. Governmental action, adopted against a climate of rising social tension, is yet another resort to repressive law which will affect the totality of an 6 See urgent appeal EGY 001/9908/OBS 053

Page 223 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

The Sudanese authorities apparently also The Observatory is concerned that these events requested the extradition of the Secretary may be linked to a recent report by the SHRO on General of SHRO, Dr Hamoudah Fath El Ra- slavery in Sudan. These moves appear to come at hman to Sudan or expel him from Egypt. Dr El a time of warming relations between the two na- Rahman was the subject of attacks on Sudanese tions and are a subject of considerable concern Radio, apparently describing him as a traitor to should they be used to further repress human the nation. rights work in Sudan. The SHRO, however, has yet to receive any con- According to recent information, the harassment firmation of this decision. They have stated that has ended. The threats appear to have been they have been operating with the knowledge of politically motivated. the government for seven years.

Page 224 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Morroco

The relative improvement of the human rights situation has been accompanied by important developments in the work of NGOs from a great number of sectors including the civil and political, social and economic. While human rights defenders can carry out their work without concern, the exercise of freedoms of association, meeting and demonstration are subject to very restrictive legal dispositions such as the Code on Public Freedoms of 1960 and 1973, which remain in force. The powers of the Ministry of the Interior equally hang over civil society like the sword of Damocles.

The Government and the administrative authorities are in a position to suspend or indeed ban an organisation or demonstration if they are considered to be of “a nature to undermine public order.” The vague character of the law gives the authorities effectively unlimited discretionary powers and, in practice, demonstrations are almost completely forbidden or repressed.

Three section members of the Khouribga section of AMDH, an affiliate of FIDH, were arrested along with numerous demonstrators in September 1997, while monitoring a sit-in held in the headquarters of the Moroccan Labour Trade Union, when the demonstration was violently broken up by the police. An activist from the section, Mr Fekak Mohamed, was condemned to 4 months imprisonment and the President had to pay a fine following a trial where witnesses were not allowed to testify. This sentence was upheld by the appeal court in April 1999. The decision was taken when the legal representatives were not present. Defence lawyers protested that the right to a fair trial had not been respected.

During 1998 and 1999, several peaceful gatherings, notably held by “the educated unemployed,” were violently broken up. Public meetings are also subject to high level legal and administrative restrictions. In 1995, the Ministry of Interior increased its control when it was given the right to ban any meeting.

Recently numerous trade unionists were arrested and jailed in Agadir and Rabat for having exercised their right to strike. Human rights organisations continue to push for the reforms in the code of freedoms, that President Youssoufi has committed himself to, to ensure they are carried out quickly.

Page 225 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Action restricting freedom sentenced by Rabat’s Magistrate Court from 1 to of association7 8 months of jail, while 7 of them were sentenced u to a 4-month suspended sentence. Some of them At the beginning of the year, the Ministry of the declared having been ill-treated during their Interior formally forbade all public meetings of custody. All of them were sentenced to pay a 500 political parties and organisations in all public dirham fine. These unionists were sued under buildings. article 288 of the Penal Code that suppresses the As almost all organisations meet in buildings right to strike, considering as an offence the owned by the local authorities and buildings for «bringing up or the attempt to bring up any youth activities, this represents a very serious concerted ceasing of work, in order to force the restriction on the freedom to meet and their rise or the drop of wages or to undermine the freedom of action. free exercise of industry or work through vio- This action was communicated by the Minister lence, accomplished facts, or «swindling,» vague of the Interior by telex to all local governors on term which can be subject of various 23rd February 1999. The action was without interpretations. precedent and appears to run completely counter According to the AMDH, who had commissioned to the clearly expressed commitment of the lawyers to defend the unionists during their trial, Government to undertake legal reform with re- the right to a fair trial was not respected. The gard to fundamental freedoms. Court refused to hear the defence witnesses and The move provoked a powerful reaction amongst rejected medical expertise to attest evidence of Moroccan civil society and international organi- torture. Only, the police minutes of the sations and it appears, according to the most cross-examination, that included irregularities, recent information, that the measure was never were taken into account. implemented. Moreover, the General secretary of the Union of the Inshore Fishermen Sailors and two other unionists were sentenced on 24th September by Unionists sentences8 the Agadir Court, to a month of jail and to pay a u 5000 dirham fine for having undermined the The OMDH, member of FIDH and OMCT, as well freedom of work, having participated to an as the AMDH, member of FIDH, the CISL, member unauthorised meeting and having insulted a po- of OMCT, informed the Observatory about the jail lice officer on duty. These persons had been sentences of 20 members of the UMT (Syndicat arrested during a strike launched on 15th Union Marocaine du Travail), employees of the September 1999. EVITIMA factory, on 23rd September 1999. On 2nd September, 13 of the 20 workers were

7 Urgent appeal MAR 001/0399/OBS 011 8 Urgent appeal MAR 002/1099/OBS 070

Page 226 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Palestine

Human rights defenders share the problems of other Palestinians who are regularly the victim of restrictions of movement imposed by Israel. Unable to travel to other areas, under the control of the Palestinian authorities, they are also restricted in their ability to travel overseas.

For their part, the Palestinian authorities placed a great number of restrictions on the work of human rights defenders, removing prison access to the legal representatives of certain NGOs, censuring the official press on their work, except when they condemn human rights violations committed by Israel. The attacks culminated with a defamation campaign launched by the Minister of Justice against Palestinian NGOs accusing them of publishing false information, of financial impropriety, etc.

Into this hostile atmosphere, President Arafat imposed restricting amendments to the association law voted on by the Palestinian Legislative Council and which had been originally welcomed by the Palestinian NGOs

Page 227 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Intimidation of NGOs9 Rerouting laws that u u guarantee the rights of From the end of May 1999, attacks on human associations to carry out rights NGOs intensified. This campaign appeared their work without to be led by the Minister of Justice, Frieh Abu restriction Meiden and centres on attempts to undermine the long awaited new law of association and NGO’s On 12th August 1999, the Speaker of the House (the Law of Charitable Associations and announced that the PLC accepted the changes Community Organisations in Palestine known as proposed by President Arafat. In essence, the the NGO law). The law is widely viewed as posi- changes involved transferring responsibility for tive: providing legal protection to NGOs, while the administration of NGOs to the Ministry of equally ensuring their accountability. Interior instead of the Ministry of Justice, as Human rights organisations and other sectors of provided in the Draft Law. civil society have contributed to the development On 25th May 1999, the Legislative Council voted of the law and the Palestine Legislative Council against the changes proposed by the President. voted in favour of the law. It is presently awaiting However, concerns were raised over the validity implementation into law. Even though it was of this vote as it did not meet the quorum adopted by the Legislative Council of the requirements in Article 71 of the Council by-laws. Palestinian Authorities on the 21st December The matter was referred to the Council’s Legal 1998, it has not entered into force as President Committee for a legal opinion. On 12th August Arafat has yet to sign it into law. 1999, the Speaker announced that the The campaign of intimidation led by the Minister Committee’s opinion affirmed that the vote was of Justice appears to confirm moves by the not valid. Accordingly, the Speaker announced Palestinian executive to keep NGO’s under the that a revised Draft Law, incorporating the control of the Ministry of Interior, which would proposed changes, would be considered valid. undermine the new law. This is of serious concern The Observatory supports the concerns as the Ministry of the Interior has undertaken acts expressed by the PCHR and underlines that this of harassment and defamation against human procedure raises the following concerns: rights organisations. While the 25th May vote did not meet the The proposal to keep control with the Ministry requirements of Article 71, and therefore not a of the Interior was rejected by the democratically valid rejection of the President’s proposal, this elected legislature, which accepted that NGOs cannot equally amount to a valid approval of his would act with greater independence if actions. Indeed, Article 71 section 2, states that if responsibility for regulation of NGOs were with the head of the Palestinian National Authority the Ministry of Justice. returns the Draft Law to the Council with comments, the Draft Law shall be re-debated. It will be considered valid and published in the Palestinian Gazette immediately if voted upon with 9 See urgent appeals PAL 002/9906/OBS 039; PAL 002/9906/OBS 039.01 an absolute majority of the Council in favour,

Page 228 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

whether the Council rejects or accepts the LAW begins defamation proposed changes. case Finally the Speaker made these announcements u on 12th August 1999 at a time when many of the Following an article that appeared in the maga- members of the Legislative Council had already zine “Al-Hayat al Jadidah” 1st July 1999, left the hall. It suggests that attempts arbitrarily accusing LAW and its members of partiality and close the file. This is particularly regrettable as, financial impropriety etc., the organisation took as stressed by the PCHR, the Draft Law represents the author and the owner of the magazine to a real test case for the PLC to stand firmly against court, who proved to be the Minister for attempts of the Executive to undermine the will Parliamentary Affairs. of the Council and its members. At LAW’s request, the Observatory mandated a The Draft Law was passed by the third reading on mission of legal support for the hearing on 11th 21st December 1998, and was transferred to the October 1999. President on 27th December 1998. Although according to Article 71, the President then had 30 days in which to either ratify the Draft Law, or Prison Access Denied to to return it to the PLC with comments, he did Lawyers of Human Rights neither. In this case, Article 71 provides that the u Organisations10 Draft Law is valid as law, and it should have been published in the Palestinian Gazette. The Observatory was informed by LAW, of the The initial draft law, passed by the third reading, denial to human rights lawyers to access represents a model for the organisation of the Palestinian prisons. According to LAW, the work of Palestinian NGO’s, as it guarantees their Palestinian National Authority has moved to deny independence while ensuring their accountability. lawyers from human rights organizations, access It is much more liberal than other laws on asso- to Palestinian prisons. ciation in the region. The changes proposed by According to the information received, the the President, which shift the responsibility of announcement of the ban came through a Reuters administering NGOs from the Ministry of Justice report from an unknown source within the to the Ministry of Interior, risks restricting the security services. Al Quds Arabic Newspaper of work of NGOs, as has happened in neighbouring 16th June 1999 published the Reuters informa- countries, such as Egypt, where the newly adopted tion, which quoted the security source as stating law on association seriously breaches interna- that the decision was taken up because, tional human rights standards on freedom of as- “Palestinian groups falsely described the actions sociation. of the Palestinian police.“ Hamdi Al-Rifi, the Director General of the Prison Service, officially informed LAW of the decision

10 See urgent appeal PAL 002/9906/OBS 040

Page 229 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

of Ghazi Jabali, the Palestinian Civilian Police secretary telephoned Dr Sarraj, who arranged for Chief, to deny human rights lawyers access to a lawyer to accompany him to the Gaza Police Palestinian prisons. Headquarters. Reports indicated that the events LAW has been informed that the Addamir Asso- were possibly linked to an article “The Battle ciation for Human Rights-Gaza, as well as the Goes On,” which was written by Sarraj and was Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, a member published in the August edition of People’s Rights of FIDH, received similar notice. magazine, a LAW publication, and distributed in LAW and PCHR lawyers are still being denied the Occupied Palestinian Territories on 1st August access to detention centres. 1999. The article criticised the attacks carried out over the past two months by the Palestine National Authority against human rights and other Harassment of Dr Eyad non-governmental organisations. The article gave u Sarraj11 special mention to the Minister of Justice, who led the campaign against NGOs. The Observatory was informed by LAW, of res- Although a lower-ranking officer (Moussa Abdul trictions on the activities and harassment of Nabi) was involved in calling Dr Sarraj to the Dr Eyad Sarraj, human rights activist and police headquarters, it is strongly suspected that director of the Gaza Community Mental Health Police Chief Ghazi Jabali would have issued such Programme. an order against a high-profile Palestinian figure On 5th August 1999, at 11:30 a.m., Dr Eyad as Dr Eyad Sarraj. Dr Sarraj has been arrested Sarraj, was called in for questioning by Moussa on three previous occasions for criticising the Abdul Nabi, a senior officer in the Civilian Police. actions of the PNA. On 7th December 1995 and At 14:00 hours, Dr Sarraj went into the Civilian 18th May 1996, he was arrested, unlawfully Police Headquarters. He was released later on detained and released without charge. On that day. He has been banned from leaving the 10th June, he was arrested, detained and city limits of Gaza. eventually accused of a (seemingly fabricated) A telephone call requesting Dr Sarraj attend the drugs charge and later for striking a police officer. police headquarters was made by the office of Upon being released, he was clearly bruised and Moussa Abdul Nabi to Eyad Sarraj’s office at the reported having been beaten. He was released Gaza Community Mental Health Programme. Dr on bail and the charges against remain Sarraj was out of the office and his secretary, Iman outstanding. Fathi Al Madaqqa, took the message. She told LAW that the police had said that they would prefer Dr Sarraj to come in rather than “sending someone:” it seems that the police were suggesting that unless he came in personal, he could be arrested. The

11 See urgent appeal PAL 001/9901/OBS 050

Page 230 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Arrest and Temporary u Detention12 On 11th August 1999, at 22:30, 26 year old Saed El-Zain, Programme Coordinator for the Cen- tre for Democratic Advancement in Ramallah, was arrested without warrant and had his home searched by the Palestinian Preventative Security Services. He was released from custody an hour later.

12 See urgent appeal PAL 001/9907/OBS 052

Page 231 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Syria

th The state of emergency proclaimed on 8 March 1963 is still in force and the free exercise of fundamental freedoms is suspended by the maintenance of martial law. Syrian human rights defenders have been effectively muzzled. In 1991, the entire membership of the directors of the CDF, the only non-governmental organisation, were arrested and imprisoned. For the last two or three years, the Government has made gestures of opening: the release of a few prisoners of opinion, including human rights defenders and a loosening of the grip of the security services. Since the release of their spokesperson in 1998, the CDF has been able to carry out some activities which are, nonetheless, under extremely difficult conditions. Their spokesperson is still not allowed to leave the country and continues to be denied his passport. The organisation works with neither offices nor legal status. These positive signs must, however, be placed in context. All sectors of civil society remain under heavy censorship, five members of the CDF remain arbitrarily detained. Finally, Syria, along with another twelve arab states, have taken a restrictive interpretation on the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.

Page 232 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Five members of the Release of two Defenders Committee for the Defence u th u of Human Rights and The Observatory was informed on 30 May 1998 Freedoms (CDF) remain in of the release of Naif Al-Hamoui and Riad detention13 Turk.

Mssrs Afif Mizher, Muhammed Ali Habib, Bassam al-Shaykh, Thabet Murad and Nizar Nayouf, members of CDF, member organisation of FIDH and OMCT, remain arbitrarily detained since their imprisonment in December 1991. They were sentenced in 1992 by a special court, under conditions that raised concerns over the fairness of the trial, for their work for human rights.

13 See the Annual Report of the Observatory 1997- 1998

Page 233 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Tunisia

The seizure of the human rights discourse by the Tunisian authorities, in its attempts to promote an image of a state that respects freedom and pluralist democracy, have been accompanied by a multifold increase in attacks on fundamental freedoms, as well as a hardening of laws with no regard for international norms. Under the pretext of the fight against Islamic fundamentalism, the authorities have adopted increasingly sophisticated methods of intimidation and harassment to silence any dissenting voices. Human rights defenders are on the front line of these human rights violations. While genuine human rights organisations are marginalised and gagged, several “NGOs” created by the authorities have obtained consultative status with the UN.

In order to silence human rights defenders, the authorities have used an arsenal of sophisticated tools of repression; unfair trials, arbitrary detention, repeated interrogations, harassment of close family including children, bullying in the workplace, telephone surveillance, confiscation of passport, threats, theft (cars, office equipment, personal items), press defamation using defamatory, insulting and degrading language and questioning of their patriotism.

Information on the Web is also tightly controlled, many internet sites are regularly blocked, notably those of international human rights organisations – creation of sites pertaining to be the work of non- governmental organisations paint a picture of human rights observance in Tunisia.

There is even a false Amnesty site portraying Tunisia’s human rights record in a somewhat different light. The suppliers of internet access are controlled by those near to the family of the president of the Tunisian Republic.

It is also noteworthy that, for the second year running, the resolution by the United Nations Sub Commission on Human Rights retained the name of the Tunisian Human rights defenders Ms Nasroui amongst those persons that the High Commissioner for Human Rights is called upon to open an inquiry.

Page 234 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Legal Persecution of Ali motivated by his relation to Dr. Marzouki and that Bedoui14 this action was part of systematic campaign by u the authorities against the Doctor, since he be- On the 14th February 1999, the Kebili Contonal came candidate to the presidential election in Court has upheld the sentencing of Mr Ali April 1994. Bedoui, brother of Dr Marzouki, ex-President of the Tunisian Human Rights League, member of both FIDH and OMCT, to six months Refusal to Legally imprisonment; a sentence made on the basis of Recognise the CNLT and the accusation that he was sentenced previously. u Systematic Muzzling of the Mr Ali Bedoui was arrested by the Police on 5th Tunisian Human Rights January 1999 whilst he was in a market in Kebilli League15 (in the South of Tunisia) with his wife. After being handcuffed, the Police ordered him to fol- The Observatory expressed its concern over the low them to a Court. The judge then issued a decision of the Ministry of the Interior (adopted th summons for his appearance before the court on 6 March 1999) not to recognise the legal on 12th January. The charges were the same as status of the National Council for Liberty in those he faced in January 1998. Tunisia, an organisation which is made up of He was brought before a court on 6th of January recognised human rights defenders. This orga- th 1998 for “infringing obligations related to the nisation declared its mandate on 10 December management of administrative surveillance.” This 1998 and began the necessary administrative sentence was imposed after another for “sup- procedures. porting an unrecognised association.” The Minister of the Interior justified the decision Following his trial in 1999, the Observatory man- of the failure of the mandate (in particular with dated an international mission to observe his respect to association law) to comply with natio- appeal hearing on the 25th February 1999. The nal law. The objective of the organisation is “to mission confirmed that the charges were un- ensure vigilance over the state of individual and founded and the lack of respect for the rights of collective liberties in Tunisia, in order to protect the defence. them to keep watch that the mechanisms of power On 11th March, the Kébilli Court confirmed the and that the laws of the country conform with the initial sentence and Ali Bedoui served his sen- demands of a free society.” tence between March and September 1999. According to the law in force, the creation of an The Observatory expressed its concern that there organisation must obtain the authorisation from the were serious grounds for suggesting that the ar- Interior Ministry. The Ministry can also dissolve an rest and the sentencing of Mr Ali Bedoui were organisation. The Ministry classes organisations under 4 categories: cultural, social, sport or general.

14 See urgent appeals TUN 001/9801/OBS 001.01; TUN 001/9801/OBS 001.02; TUN 001/9801/OBS 15 See urgent appeal TUN 001/0399/OBS 012

Page 235 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Other organisations have been victims in the past Detention of senior member of restrictive legislation that violates Article 22 of of the CNLT16 the International Covenant on civil and political u rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of The Observatory expressed its grave concern over association. In the course of the past few years, the disappearance of Dr Moncef Marzouki one fifth of associations, between groups and from Tunis, on 5th June 1999. political parties, have been ruled unconstitutional. Dr Marzouki was thought to have disappeared The Tunisian association of democratic women on 5th June at 14:30 in Tunis whilst he was on and the Amnesty International office in Tunisia his way back from Gaafour, 110 km from the have had to wait for a number of years before, capital. He was returning to take part in the finally, they were given administrative commemoration of the death of Nabil Barakati authorisation. who died under torture in 1987. Because of official classification as a general He was brought before a Judge and charged with organisation, The Tunisian League of Human “forming an unrecognised organisation, Rights, member of the OMCT network, was forced maintaining an unrecognised organisation, to accept all applications for membership without distributing false news and distributing docu- any consideration of the motives of the applica- ments likely to disturb public order.” tion. The LTDH felt it could not accept these terms Moncef Marzouki was freed on 7th June. He was and the authorities consequently dissolved them. then brought once again before the investigating As a result of international and national action, judge on 5th July and was freed. the LTDH was able to organise their congress in 1994 and 1996 and the administrative court annuled their designation as a “general” organi- Indictment of the Secretary sation. The league and senior figures of the orga- General of the CNLT17 nisation - notably the vice President who was u arbitrarily detained for two years - and members Omar Mestiri, Secretary General of the Natio- have since been victims of harassment and nal Council for Freedoms in Tunisia (CNLT), was muzzling of other forms which has effectively arrested in his home in Tunis on 12th May 1999. prevented the organisation from carrying out its He was detained overnight and released the work. following evening. The Interior Ministry interrogated him about his work for the CNLT. He was brought before the investigating judge on 31st May and then on 3rd July 1999, who charged him with diffusing false information and

16 See urgent appeals TUN 002/0399/OBS 037; TUN 002/0399/OBS 037.01 17 See the press release of the Observatory 26th May 1999

Page 236 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

maintaining an unrecognised organisation. He conducted without regard for a fair trial with the was forbidden from leaving Tunis. defence lawyers being prevented from effectively carrying out their job. The Observatory was then informed of the Sentencing of Abderraouf sentencing of Mr. Abderraouf Chammari to a 12 Chammari month prison sentence for “defamation of the u authorities and diffusing false news.” The sen- Mr. Abderraouf Chammari, Director of the tence followed a trial hearing held on the 29th public Tourist Planning Board and brother of Mr July 1999. The sentence was upheld by the Court Khemais Chammari, eminent human rights of Appeal of Tunis on the 10th August 1999. defender and laureate of the Nuremberg Human On Tuesday 31st August 1999, Mr Chammari was Rights Prize winner of 1997, was given notice on freed on humanitarian grounds after two months Friday 2nd July 1999 by the President of the Ad- of detention. ministrative Council of the Tourist Board, that his assignment with the Ministry of Public Works was at an end (the Ministry responsible for his Sentencing of the Lawyer posting to the Tourist Board). He consequently Ms Radhia Nasraoui had to leave the office. u On Monday 5th July, agents of the judicial police On 15th May the trial of Ms Radhia Nasraoui, arrived at Mr Abderraouf Chammari’s house and, and 20 co-defendants, students and members of having formally delivered a search warrant, they the Tunisian Workers Communist Party, took asked him to go with them. From Monday 5th place. At the beginning of the year Radhia July 15:30 until Wednesday 7th July 9:30, Mr Nasraoui took on the defence of the above Chammari was held at a secret location in the mentioned people. building of the Interior Ministry and then in the Having denounced the torture and ill treatment Military barracks of Boucloucha. suffered by these people, and filed cases and On Wednesday 7th July, he was brought before requests for inquiry, she found herself facing the the Procurer of the Republic and was presented same charges “helping a meeting of an organisa- with charges of “defamation of the authorities tion advocating hatred.” and diffusing false news.” It would appear that Although she was released since the indictment th these charges relate to a statement made by three on 30 March 1998, she has not been allowed to engineers on his team alleging that, during the leave the greater Tunis area. course of a work meeting, Mr Abderraouf For the first time, the Observatory dispatched a Chammari had criticised the entire family of the legal defence mission represented by a very se- head of state. Mr Chammari denied all these nior French lawyer (le Bâtonnier de l’Ordre des allegations and maintained this position when he Avocats à la Cour d’appel de Paris). However, the faced his accusers. President of the Court refused to allow the lawyer The representative of the Observatory, who was to speak or to wear the official clothes. observing the trial, noted that the session was The mission was jointly mandated with other in-

Page 237 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

ternational human rights organisations (Human At 10 o’ clock in the morning, the Prison Director Rights Watch, the Lawyers Committee for Human informed Mr Ksila that he was going to be Rights, the Dutch Lawyer for Lawyer Foundation, released. He was then driven home. No motive and during the appeal hearing, Amnesty Inter- was given for his release. th national) to monitor all stages of the trial of Following his arrest on 29 September 1997, Nasraoui. The observers of the trial confirmed Khemais Ksila was condemned to a cumulative th that the only reason that Ms Nasraoui was three year prison sentence on 11 February 1998 charged was because of her work as a defender for “defamation of law and order and the of human rights and her legal work to defend authorities, distribution of false information fundamental freedoms. which would disrupt law and order and incite The Observatory notes that Ms Nasraoui has members of the public to break the law of the been, for a very long time, a victim of harassment land”[Free Translation](articles 42 to 51 of the clearly directed by the authorities. Her office has Penal Code). This judgement was confirmed by th been ransacked on three occasions in 1994, a court of appeal on 25 of April 1998, even 1997 and February 1998. Her car was stolen in though Khemais Ksila was not heard. 1994 and an attempt was made to burn down The Observatory stated that it had serious grounds her apartment in 1995. Moreover in June 1998, for believing that all these acts, including his an attempt was made to kidnap her daughter of arbitrary arrest, were motivated by the work nine when she was returning home. Finally, on Khemais Ksila does to defend human rights in th the 24 May 1998, Ms Nasraoui avoided an Tunisia. These actions, moreover, confirm the 18 attempted attack by a person on a motorbike . existence of a systematic pattern of repression Since her sentence, the intimidation has directed at human rights defenders on the part intensified: she is tailed on a daily basis and her of the Tunisian Authorities. co-workers questioned on their activities. For a number of months prior to his arrest, Khemais Ksila was subjected to different forms of th harassment and threats. He was sacked on 6 Release of Khemais Ksila February 1996 from the national railways board, th u his passport was confiscated on 18 August 1996, The Observatory published news of the release, and he was put under constant police sur- on 22nd September 1999 of Mr Khemais Ksila, veillance. During his incarceration, the Vice President of the Tunisian Human Rights harassment of his family, particularly his wife, League, affiliated to FIDH and OMCT, after two continued with the family being tailed. During one years of intense international action. Khemais encounter, his wife’s passport was stolen, Ksila, is currently one of six candidates for the presumably to stop her travelling overseas to 1999 Sakharov Human Rights Prize. plead her husbands case. The Observatory underlines that despite this release that, as a result of their work, a great many human rights defenders remain the object of 18 See the Annual Report of the Observatory 1997- 1998 grave violations in Tunisia. The release of Mr Ksila

Page 238 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

indicates no change in direction for the authorities, unless they can take the necessary action to put an end to all forms of harassment of those who struggle daily for respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights in Tunisia.

Page 239 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Page 240