Karzakan incidents: Fears of Politically Motivated Ruling Glooms the Prosecution


Bahrain: First historical occurrence: Detainees of Two Karzakan incidents prosecuted together
Ignored by Court: Repeated inhumane and ill-treatment asserted by detainees
Fears of Politically Motivated Ruling Glooms the Prosecution
www.bahrainrights.org

10 December 2008

Amalgamation and prosecution of two different cases:

At about 10am of Monday 8th September 2008, 28 young men were handcuffed and escorted, by civilian dressed security men, to their place in the High Criminal Court. Without any legal justification and to the bewilderment of the detainees, the lawyers, the families and the observers, all the detainees of the two “Karzakan incidents”, grouped in 15 and 19, were joined together in this court seated by judge, Shaikh Mohamed bin Ali Al-Khalifa-member of the Royal Family, irrespective of the differences in the circumstances, timing and charges of the two cases.


Bahrain: First historical occurrence: Detainees of Two Karzakan incidents prosecuted together
Ignored by Court: Repeated inhumane and ill-treatment asserted by detainees
Fears of Politically Motivated Ruling Glooms the Prosecution
www.bahrainrights.org

10 December 2008

Amalgamation and prosecution of two different cases:

At about 10am of Monday 8th September 2008, 28 young men were handcuffed and escorted, by civilian dressed security men, to their place in the High Criminal Court. Without any legal justification and to the bewilderment of the detainees, the lawyers, the families and the observers, all the detainees of the two “Karzakan incidents”, grouped in 15 and 19, were joined together in this court seated by judge, Shaikh Mohamed bin Ali Al-Khalifa-member of the Royal Family, irrespective of the differences in the circumstances, timing and charges of the two cases.

The first case, dubbed as “Atteyatalla Farm”, is composed of 15 young Bahrainis, out of whom, two have still not been detained yet and are prosecuted in absentia, are accused of ssetting fire into Shaikh Atteyatalla’s farm in Karzakan village on 6th March 2008, and as the Public Prosecution (PP) case 300/2008/1, are charged with criminal arson, illegal assembly and riot.

In the second case, the 19 young men are accused of setting fire into a state-militia patrol, near Karzakan village on 9th April 2008, allegedly causing the death of one of its members. As per the PP case number 425/2008/1, they are charged with: intentional killing of a state-militia member, criminal arson, illegal assembly and riot. It is to be mentioned that four detainees of this case are charged with the same accusations in both cases.

High security alert in the court:

On that day, the Ministry building was surrounded with heavily armed Special Forces, while the leading passages, the entrance and the hall of the Higher Criminal Court were filled with security personnel characterized by their grey suits and ear microphones. Visitors to the court, including families of detainees, were inspected by security members and their identities were scrutinized.

Royal Pardon and humiliation conditions:

The lawyers enquired about the royal pardon issued on July 31st, which should include at least the “Atteyatalla Farm” detainees whose release was bound by the relinquish of Shaikh Atteyatalla’s claim for the damages to his farm and properties, which he did, as presented by the local media. Furthermore, the release of those detainees was not coupled with any written consent of repent from their side, and hence lawyers were wondering about the reasons of holding the release of the detainees on the fulfilment of the condition of signing the consent. The detainees refused to sign the consent as they understood from it to be some form of admission of guilt and could be used to incriminate them in the future. Hence, the prison Authorities refused to release them according to the said royal pardon.

Conditions of Detainees:

The detainees expressed their anguish of the ill-treatment, deprivation of their rights in a letter handed in to the judges, expressing their resentment of the inhuman conditions they have been forced to endure. This would include:
1) Continued ill-treatment: deprivation from clean food, distilled water, and lighting during visits to toilets and bathrooms.
2) Deprivation from the right to physical exercise and sport
3) Prevention from telephonic contacts with families.
4) Reducing the number of visits by delaying its execution causing it to expire, hence preventing the families from seeing the detainees. Even in case where visits were possible, constraints were induced on the visitors, forcing the presence of three members of the Special Forces in the visitors’ room, depriving them from any form of privacy.
5) Hospitalization: Detainees requiring medical treatment are not taken to the health center on time, and furthermore, the scheduled appointments for medical treatments are either delayed or were made to pass without taken the sick detainee to the hospital.
6) Meals are not healthy and some detainees suffer from stomach aches. Access to food from canteen is not granted.
Furthermore, the detainees informed their lawyers and stood before the Judge to express resentment of the attack on their beliefs, sectarian antagonising and ridiculing their religious rituals by the jail officer Ali Yousef Qamber, MOI employee number 575.

Noncompliance with Defence Commission requests:

The defence commission stated that the requests made to the Court before its recession on July 13th, were not entertained. They reiterated their requests again which are:
1) Receipt of original copies of the photographs in the case files,
2) Deliverance of the videos showing the acts the detainees were coerced to act in the aftermath their detention and during interrogation in the CIB,
3) Appointing an independent committee to examine the blazed patrol car mentioned in the case.
4) Bringing passports and the CPR (Id’s) of the deceased and his companions in the patrol car,
5) Release of the detainees on bail
6) Produce permanent permission to the defence commission to visit their defendants any time and without the presence of any members of the security authorities,
7) Provision of health care to all detainees and stop exposing them to all form of attack and beatings.

Non-receipt of medical report and adjournment of session:

It is over three months since the compliance of the court judge to have a medical committee to examine the detainees against their allegations of torture which they strongly and repeatedly exhibited to the Jury on 1st and 2nd June 2008. The lawyers indicated that they have not received a copy of the medical report, and need time to go over it to prepare their deliberation. The Judge decided then to adjourn the court session to October 6th.

Conclusive remarks:

The Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) and Movement of Liberties and Democracy (HAQ) express their concerns for the manner in which these two cases are being handled by the judiciary in Bahrain, which has been known of its sensitivity to outside influence. More ever, the two organizations, BCHR and HAQ, see that:

1- There has been an unabated ill-treatment of the detainees of the Karzakan incidents, since their early house arrests since last April, during the interrogation in the notorious Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB), confession extraction in the Public Prosecution (PP) and during detainment in Dry Dock prison.
2- Every member of the two groups detailed they way he was physically and psychologically tortured in the CIB and the PP to coerce his to confess of the charges set by the PP.
3- Irrespective of the repeated expression of anguish and complaints to the Judge, he suffices by stating that the court will investigate the allegations. This attitude by the Higher Criminal Court Jude, Shaikh Mohammed Al-Khalifa ,was similar to that for the prisoners of the December events who expressed that they were exposed to torture to extract confessions.
4- The Court has not taken any serious restraint measure against the repeated assertions by the 28 detainees, in the two groups, against official members of the CIB, the PP as well as those in the Dry Dock prison.
5- The Court was reluctant to take swift measures towards the assertions of tortures, by having an independent medical committee to carry its check soon before symptoms of torture disappear. Although a medical committee was lately formed, it is feared that the outcome its report would be influenced by the long period elapsed since the detainees were exposed to torture. Most torture symptoms would normally vanish after a period of 6-8 weeks
6- The amalgamation of the two cases and prosecuting the two groups together, not only reflect the court lack of professionalism and impartiality, it also widens the doubts concerning the political drive behind their arrests, prosecution and charges.
7- It is feared that the court will act unbiased, in similar manner to that against the activists and human rights defenders charged in December incidents. It ignored the lawyers defence proving that the PP violated all legal means to extracts confessions from detainees, overlooked the medical report which asserted indications of torture, and paid no attention to witnesses of negations. The decision of the court apparently will be based on coerced confessions obtained during the interrogation in the torture center in the CIB, proving once again the political motives behind the detention and prosecution of the detainees who, most of them, are known activists on the village of Karzakan and the national levels.

Bahrain Centre for Human Rights- BCHR
Movement of Liberties and Democracy- HAQ
Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights