NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST 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 cultu- ral 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 restric- tions 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 viola- tions, 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.