16 Oct 2010
Following is a summary of the lawsuit filed by a group of Bahraini lawyers, litigants for the defendants in the case of the so-called “terrorist network” against the Public Prosecutor on 21 Sep 2010 on a range of violations committed by this institution and which has disrupted its neutrality as an independent institution that subordinate to the judicial authority
Violations of the Public Prosecution have been presented in the following:
– Violation of the provisions of Article 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states: “For a prosecutor, defendant, prosecutor of civil rights and who is responsible for it, and their delegates, to attend all the procedures of the investigation. A member of the Public Prosecutor has to inform them of the day and the place in which investigation procedures take place”.
16 Oct 2010
Following is a summary of the lawsuit filed by a group of Bahraini lawyers, litigants for the defendants in the case of the so-called “terrorist network” against the Public Prosecutor on 21 Sep 2010 on a range of violations committed by this institution and which has disrupted its neutrality as an independent institution that subordinate to the judicial authority
Violations of the Public Prosecution have been presented in the following:
– Violation of the provisions of Article 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states: “For a prosecutor, defendant, prosecutor of civil rights and who is responsible for it, and their delegates, to attend all the procedures of the investigation. A member of the Public Prosecutor has to inform them of the day and the place in which investigation procedures take place”.
The member of the Public Prosecution can hold investigations in their absence when he deems it necessary, in order to reveal the truth, and once that need ends, and he allows them to review the investigation.
In case of urgency, he may proceed with some procedures of the investigative in the absence of opponents, and for those the right to access the papers that prove these procedures.
If the member of the Public Prosecution authorizes him ,and if he does not authorize him, it shall be proved in the record:
– Violation of the provision of paragraph c of Article 2 of the Constitution, which stipulates that: “The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a legal trial ,at which he has had all the guarantees necessary to practice the right of defense at all stages of investigation and trial in accordance with the law.
– This is in addition to a violation of the provisions of paragraph b of section 3 of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that:
“Every accused charged with a crime can enjoy during the consideration of his case, and in full equality, the following minimum guarantees:
A-To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands ,of the nature of the charge against him and their causes,
b- To be given time and facilities which are sufficient for the preparation of his defense, and for communicating with a lawyer of his own choosing,”
– As well as violation of the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states: “one who is arrested shall be confronted by the reasons for his arrest, and shall have the right to communicate, with his family in order to inform them of what had happened and to consult a lawyer.”
Knowing that the Public Prosecution refused to permit the appellants to meet their lawyers, either before or after the start of the investigation, contrary to the provisions of Article 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
– This was accompanied by violations of the provisions of the Constitution and laws of many other violations, forcing the lawyers of the appellants to address the Public Prosecutor in accordance with their letter of 07/09/2010 Document No. 1, which included a whole description for all offenses committed by the Public Prosecutor.
Delegates of the appellants concluded in their above statement by demanding insurance of all the rights established in favor of the appellants, including their demand to enable them to meet the appellant’s pursuant to the provisions of Article 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that: “The public prosecutor may order the imprisoned defendant not to communicate with other prisoners ,and not to be visited , without violating the right of the defendant to communicate with his defender in private”.
To avoid repetition, allow us to refer the content of that letter, in terms of what is listed as the facts and reasons as an integral part of these Regulations.
First: On Facts:
As of the date of 13 Aug 2010 and subsequent different dates , security bodies whether represented by National security apparatus or security forces of Ministry of the Interior, did arrest the appellants and others, and these parties declared that the arrest of the appellants and others have been based on the permissions issued by the Public Prosecution.
As of the date of 28 Aug 2010 and subsequent different dates, investigations of the Public Prosecution began with the appellants, starting with the first appellant, whom have been convicted by several charges including, for example, but not limited to, the establishment and management of an organization whose purpose is promoting disabling provisions of the Constitution, the establishment of an unlawful organization , in order to turn over the main statute of the state, participation and promotion to change the political or the social or the economic system of the state. Public Prosecution has issued resolutions against each appellant by imprisonment up to 60 days.
Procedures for arresting and investigating with appellants have suffered a number of explicit and clear violations of the provisions of law related to providing guarantees of the right to defend assigned to any defendant ,in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, laws , conventions and international treaties which Bahrain joined, and which are therefore part of the National Legislative System.
Second: On Causes:
Since the public prosecution has deprived and still deprive the appellants from meeting their lawyers, despite their lawyer’s request submitted to the Public Prosecutor in the above statement, and still the injunction is in effect depriving the appellants of their most basic rights and their legal safeguards with the continuation of investigations with the appellants, which could hurt them a great harm , that is still continuing due to lack of response by the Public Prosecution – represented by the Public Prosecutor – to the request of the appellants and their lawyers pursuant to the rule of law. It is indisputable that this right is unquestionable, being assigned by the law.
Therefore,
the appellants seek justice from this distinguished court, in an urgent article to compel the defendant to issue permission for the appellants ,to meet with their delegates whose names listed in these Regulations, with imposing legal fees and attorney’s fees on the defendant.
Signed by Lawyers:
1. Hassan Ali Red.
2. Abdullah Alcamlawi.
3. Jaleela Elsayed Ahmed.
4. Mohamed Ahmed Abdallah.
5. Mohammed Issa AlTajer.
6. Hafiz Ali.
7. Issa Ibrahim Salman.
8. Sami Seyaadi.
9. Abdul Jalil Hassan Al Aradi.
10. Mohammed Madan.
11. Osama Almkabi.
12. Hussein Al-Haddad.
13. Fatimah Khalf.
14. Mohammed Al-Jeshi.
15. Hassan Al-Nowah
16. Mahmoud Rabie.
Appellants:
1. D. Abdul Jalil Abdullah Yusuf Alsingace.
2. Sheikh Saeed Mirza Ahmad Nouri
3. Sheikh Mohammed Habib Mansour Miqdad.
4. Abdul-Ghani Issa Ali AlKhanjar.
5. Jafar Ahmed Jassim Alhesabi.
6. Sheikh Abdullah Al-Issa Al-Mahroos
7. Sheikh Abdul Hadi Abdullah Almkhawder.
8. Mohammed Saeed al-Sahlawi
9. Seyed Kazem Seyed Al Alawi
10. Ahmed Jawad Ahmed Jawad.
11. Ebrahim Tahir.
12. Suhail al-Shihabi.
13. Al-Hur Yousif Alsmikh
14. Hussain Imran.
15. Ahmad Jamsheer Fairuz.
16. Hassan Hamad Al-Haddad.
17. Salman Naji Salman Ahmad.
18. Abdul-Ameer Jaffer Rashid Aradi.
19. Abdel Hadi Abdullah Al Ali Al Saffar.
20. Hussein Sahlawi.
21. Sayed Aqeel Ahmed Ali al-Moussawi.
22. Ali Hassan Abdalimam.