Model: Bahrain13 case of political and human rights leaders in the so-called issue of “Alliance for the Republic”
7 January 2013
This memorandum:
1. This memorandum reviews several inconsistencies between the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in case No. 124/2011 dated 04/09/2012 and the reported observations and recommendations associated with this case in the report issued by the “Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry” on November 23, 2011. Which makes this case ideal model to test the seriousness of the Bahrain authorities to apply the recommendations of the committee on its anniversary.
Model: Bahrain13 case of political and human rights leaders in the so-called issue of “Alliance for the Republic”
7 January 2013
This memorandum:
1. This memorandum reviews several inconsistencies between the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in case No. 124/2011 dated 04/09/2012 and the reported observations and recommendations associated with this case in the report issued by the “Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry” on November 23, 2011. Which makes this case ideal model to test the seriousness of the Bahrain authorities to apply the recommendations of the committee on its anniversary.
The timing of the issuance of this memorandum comes before the final verdict by the appeal Court in the case, and expected to be 7th Jan 2013.
2. And what makes the BICI report have a strong link for the Bahrain13 case:
1. That all the charges in this case involving juveniles witnessed by Bahrain in February / March 2011, and the king of Bahrain has formed the BICI committee to look in the course of events that took place in Bahrain during February and March 2011 and the resulting aftermath ..” (According to the Royal Order No. 28 of 2011).
2. That the BICI report presented in detail the role of the accused in the events, and what they suffered during the arrest, search, detention, investigation and in the national safety courts, which are directly related to the seriousness of the accusations and the legality of the evidence and judgments.
3. That King had received the BICI report and accepted it. He then ordered state agencies to the implementation its recommendations.
3. This memorandum is based primarily on the citation and comparison between the texts of the Supreme Court of Appeal decision issued in the case (which is in 77-pages) and the report published by the BICI.
Although the total number of defendants in this case are 21 Bahraini political figures and human rights activists, this note will focus only on the thirteen defendants against whom the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal sentenced.
Topics of the memorandum and the main conclusions:
First: the role of the accused “Bahrain13” in the events of February and March 2011: The BICI findings refute the responsibility of the defendants in the juvenile and planning of the events, and addresses the BICI differently on the Alliance for the Republic.
Second: the BICI report documenting the violations during the arrest and search, and lawyers argue that “what is built on falsehood is false,” the appeals court ignored all of that in its condemnation of the accused.
Third: The BICI report documented the violations (on Arbitrary arrests, detention, solitary confinement, torture and ill-treatment) and recommended achieving a neutral and independent investigation but the Court of Appeal ignored all that and rely on its judgment on testifies taken forcibly and based on witnesses who were involved in torturing the defendants.
Fourth: Court of Appeal ignored the BICI conclusion and recommendation concerning the topic “arrest and trial in relation to freedom of expression, assembly and association,” and criminalised the defendants who exercised these freedoms by expanding the interpretation of Bahraini laws which restrict freedoms, for the purpose of convicting defendants of inciting violence and terrorism.
Fifth: The Court of Appeal condemns some of the accused of spying, despite the fact the BICI report denied it stating that there are no signs of external interference in the events.
Sixth: a final summary.
First: the incompatibility between the BICI report and the rule of “the Supreme Court of Appeal” with respect to: the nature of the role of the accused in this case in the events of February / March 2011, and the reasons for the escalation of these events, and the “Alliance for the Republic”:
1. Came in the judgment of the “Supreme Court of Appeal” on 24.07.2012, that: “… on the subject of the thirteen appeals, and when the incidents are well known to the court, .. is obtained that the impact of the arrest of the terrorist cell known as the twenty-five, the trial (it was on 15/8/2010 .. which was six months prior to the events) have been monitoring the movement of the first defendant (Abdul Wahab Hussein Ali) and he is an official in the unauthorised Al-Wafa Islamic Party – and to form a group aimed to violate the laws and regulation ie, the Alliance for the Republic, intended to change the regime in the kingdom and disrupt the provisions of the Constitution and the laws in coordination with leading the so-called Al-Haq movement , the Bahrain Freedom Movement and Islamic Movement and Salvation Movement who are residents in London are accused of second (Hassan Ali Hassan Mushaima) .. and others is appellants .. in conjunction with some activists within the plaque They accused (Abdul Jalil Radhi Mansour al-Miqdad) .. and (Abdulhadi Abdullah Al-Khawaja) .. (Salah Abdullah Al-Khawaja), (Mohammed Hassan Jawad) .. and (Mohammed Ali Radhi Ismail). They all agreed on the composition of the so-called coalition of for the Republic .. The defendant (Abdul Wahab Hussein Ali) took advantage of the emergence of some calls that have been talking on over the internet .. to choose 14th Feb .. to claim certain rights, as they called to do demonstrations and marches .. on that day with the composition of groups to work with all area .. with work on the exploitation of houses of worship .. to incite public disorder and riots and vandalism .. for implementation of the scheme aimed at regime change and the Constitution ..
The first defendant (Abdul Wahab Hussein Ali) lead the first protests in his living village “Nuwaidrat” and he used his house as a meeting centre to call for “Alliance for the Republic” , and the GCC roundabout has been selected as place for demonstrators to highlight the numerical density .. but the roundabout was disbursed the first time and the idea of a national dialogue started and protestors were allowed to go back to the roundabout, and those accused of the terrorist cell were released from jail – they were arrested from 15/8/2010 until 23/2/201, and then some of them have been arrested in this case after less than a month), which was among the defendants where the second defendant (Hasan Ali Hassan Mushaima), The fourth defendant (Mohamed Habib Mansour Al-Meqdad) , seventh (Abd-Jaleel Sangaece), eighth (Saeed Mirza) , ninth (Hadi Al-Mukhoudur) and 10th (Abdullah Issa Mahroos) .. and some of the released have directly joined the protestors after their release along with the rest of the defendants and participated in the activities of gathering in the roundabout, incitement to Drop governance and commit hostilities .. They also attacked the houses of worship for Sunnis, disrupted health and educational institutions, calling for disobedience and using force with those who have not responded to them .. All this under the name of “Alliance for the Republic” (see judgment the Court of Cassation issued in the case. . pages 33 to 37).
2. As for the BICI findings, after the viewing the details mentioned above relating to the case and after investigations, interviews. it was recorded in the forth chapter from the report, the narrative of events during February and March 2011 were listed as , and included a narrative of following conclusions and observations:
– “the Arab spring has stimulated pent up popular reactions and grievances in many Arab States, including Bahrain. Unlike earlier manifestations of unrest, the initial protests that began on 14 February were not orchestrated by institutionalised political opposition groups, but were triggered and led by networks of discontented and politically unaffiliated youth.” (Note 641)
– “.the demand was for reforms, not for regime change. This was the same in the early stages of the demonstrations and protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Yemen. But as experience shows, when demands for reforms are rebuffed, the demands become for regime change. In the end, the society becomes both polarised and radicalised.” (Note 642)
– “The size and breadth of these initial demonstrations was relatively limited. However, the death of two protestors on 14 and 15 February caused the number of persons participating in protests throughout Bahrain to increase significantly. In addition, a discernible shift in the nature of demands being called for in these protests took place after the first clearance of the GCC Roundabout on 17 February 2011 and the deaths that occurred in confrontations between protestors and security forces. Popular discontent was further heightened by what many considered to be the lack of both adequate and timely government responses to the protestors’ demands and measures to address grievances.. ” (Note 645)
– As the protests continued, more criticism and allegations of corruption were directed at HRH the Prime Minister. Later, many demonstrators began to call for changing the ruling regime in Bahrain, and gradually, the chant “the people demand the removal of the regime”, which was borrowed from other Arab countries that had witnessed similar mass uprisings, became one of the protestors’ slogans.
“(note 646)
– “Also on 7 March, three opposition groups proclaimed the Coalition for the Republic, which called for the establishment of a democratic republic in Bahrain.
(note 652)
“The Coalition will gradually escalate its pressure on the GoB using peaceful means. The measures undertaken will be decided and executed in a decentralised manner, which has proven to be more successful than the centralised control of the protests”(Note No. 413).
“In an interview with Mr. Hassan Mushaima, who explained through that one of the main reasons that forced an alliance of political forces issuing this statement and call openly for the establishment of the republic in Bahrain is the explanation for the requirement popular” fall of the regime, “also denied the leader of the right and there is no relationship between the coalition and Iran. and that the goal of the alliance is to establish a democratic republic, not religious ”
– In a subsequent press interview Mr. Al-Meshaima clarified tha the one of the reasons that had compelled the coalition to issue this statement and to openly call for the establishment of a republic was that the popular demand to remove the regime had given rise to different interpretations.” and “Mr Almeshaima also denied any relations between the coalition and Iran, and affirmed that the coalition’s purpose was to establish a democratic republic not a theocracy.- (note 414).
– “By 12-13 March, the general state of law and order in Bahrain had significantly deteriorated. This, coupled with the failure of political negotiations between HRH the Crown Prince and the opposition, led the GoB to take steps to restore order and maintain security. The GoB requested assistance from GCC-JSF which arrived on 14 March followed by the issuance of Royal Decree No. 18 of 2011 pursuant to which a State of National Safety was declared in Bahrain.-” (note No. 666).
– “In the following weeks, the GoB forcefully confronted all forms of demonstrations in Bahrain. Public Security Forces were dispatched to the various villages and neighbourhoods to disperse demonstrations. The BDF was deployed to the centre of Manama, where the GCC Roundabout was cordoned-off and later removed. The GoB also arrested many of the political leaders of the protest movement and set up checkpoints throughout Bahrain where people found to have either participated in demonstrations or sympathised with the demonstrators were arrested.” ( note 667).
3. Add to observations and conclusions mentioned it spotted by the BICI in documenting the diary of events post some of the defendants in this case in the various events, “Political figures and prominent personalities are reported to have visited the roundabout, some of whom gave statements and made speeches outlining their views on the situation in Bahrain and their demands for political and economic reform. These included the leader of the Al Wafa’ opposition movement, Abdulwahab Hussein, and the Al Wefaq Secretary General, Sheikh Ali Salman.” (Note No. 224).
“Organized a Hadshdh demonstration in front of the headquarters of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Interior to demand the release of the rest of the people arrested .. and was among the protesters, Sheikh Mohammed Habib willow (Mekdad)” (note 303).
“Other figures and leaders who gave statements at the roundabout during the day included Dr Abduljalil Alsankis, Mr Sami Siyadi of the Wa’ad movement, Mr Abdulla Saleh of the Islamic Action Society and Mr Mohamed Habib Alsafaf.
” (note No. 305).
“At 22:00, Mr Hassan Almeshaima arrived at the GCC Roundabout where he was enthusiastically welcomed by the demonstrators. He gave a short speech in which he commended the protesters for having mastered the techniques of peaceful civil disobedience and encouraged them to learn from the Egyptian experience how to escalate their demonstrations to increase pressure on the GoB. Mr Almeshaima told protesters that they should exploit the international media spotlight that was focused on Bahrain, and congratulated them for their perseverance for the cause of freedom, which had earned them the respect of international public opinion. He also encouraged them to take further escalatory steps as long as they remained peaceful in nature. Mr Almeshaima concluded his statement by reaffirming the importance of maintaining national unity and rejecting calls for sectarianism and civil discord because ” (Note No. 331).
4. Conclusions on some of the inconsistencies and differences between what was adopted by the Court of Appeal and the report of the findings of the BICI on the role of the accused in the events:
– The Supreme Court of Appeal has given its judgment to condemn the accused on security reports and the indictment prepared by the military prosecution, which says that it has been established group called the “Alliance for the Republic” by about 6 months prior to the events, and that this group is composed of leaders in the four political groups In addition to “some activists within the country,” as well as some of the detainees who have been released during the events. And that this group is responsible of planning and implementing the events of February and March 2011, and those are behind the violence in those events.
– Where as in the BICI findings, they attributed the outbreak of the events to the networks of non-politicized youth wanted to express their grievances and demand reforms, and that the escalation of events was due to casualties among the demonstrators and delayed response by the government to their demands.
With regard to the Alliance for the Republic, the BICI findings did not record it’s existence before March 7, 2011, ten days before the attack the protest movement and the arrest of the accused.
The BICI Committee also documented the fact that the alliance is a declaration that combines three political groups and not a freestanding organisation.
The Commission also published the text of the Declaration Alliance, which emphasised the peaceful activities and return to the people regarding the political system. There is no diary events to the Committee’s report any facts or indicators linking the defendants in this case of committing acts of violence or incitement during the events mentioned.
5. The conclusions of the BICI committee correspond with the contents of the case file from the records of the defendants (though they are taken forcibly), with seizures and recordings, and with what was stated by the defence lawyers, with the defendants’ statements before the Supreme Court of Appeal. But what differs from the report of the Commission of Inquiry with what came in the indictment, which relied on the security reports and fragmentary and distorted clips from the records of the investigation and recordings in order to support the charges assigned in this case without presenting clear evidence and proof.
Second: Abuses with regard to the methods of arrests, search and detention:
1. In the third section of Chapter 6 of the report of the BICI, under the heading “method of carrying out the arrest,” the Commission concluded many of the observations, including:
– “Between 21 March and 15 April 2011, Bahrain security forces systematically raided houses in order to arrest individuals, and in so doing terrified the occupants.” (Note 1172).
– “Most of the arrests described in this section were based on Royal Decree No. 18 of 2011 on the Declaration of a State of National Safety, which gives the authority to the Military Attorney General to issue arrest warrants for an indefinite period of time, without having to state the evidentiary basis supporting the arrest and without having to secure any judicial authorisation. The assumption under this Decree is that the Military Attorney General is a judicial officer. Based on this reasoning, the National Safety Decree did not provide for any judicial oversight. In addition, the National Safety Decree does not require the arresting officer to produce an arrest warrant issued by the Military Attorney General, nor is there any requirement for obtaining a search warrant to search the premises of the person arrested.” (Note No. 1174).
– “The Commission investigators were also not informed of any investigation commenced by the respective agencies on the basis of complaints by the persons arrested or members of their families. This evidences a pattern of disregard for violations of any procedures that may have existed as well as disregard for Bahrain law and international human rights law pertaining to fairness and due process in connection with arrests
“(Note No. 1178).
– “IFurthermore, the very fact that a systematic pattern of behaviour existed indicates that this is how these security forces were trained and how they were expected to act. This could not have happened without the knowledge of higher echelons of the command structure of the MoI and NSA” (Note No. 1179).
2. Despite observations and recommendations highlighted in the report of the BICI committee,on the impartiality and integrity of conduct arrests, and resources imbalance in the decree declaring a state of national safety (notes 184 and 185) and the need for serious investigation into practices that accompanied the arrests, searches, and without paying attention to the lawyers on invalidity of arrests and searches and all the consequent results of the seizures associated with and the results of the investigation, in spite of all this, the Supreme Court of Appeal:
(A) did not order any investigation into the safety of arrests and interrogation in this case.
(B). Benefited from the Constitutional Court ruling issued on 25.01.2012 which amuned the National Safety Ordinance, “.. and this may include that provision that stated the aforementioned Royal Decree of measures and procedures for the inspection of people, places and arrest suspects .. does not violate the Constitution” ( See page 59 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal).
(C) in response to a first appeals defences court said: “With regard to what was mentioned in the invalidity of his arrest, prompting the rest of the appellants as well as invalidity of their search, that the court had relied statement as previously on other elements of proof ..” (refer to page 61 of the judgment on appeal).
————
Third: violations of torture and detention incommunicado:
1. In the fourth section of Chapter VI of the BICI report , under the heading: “treatment of prisoners and detainees”, the Committee concluded the following:
-” There was a more discernible pattern of mistreatment with regard to certain categories of detainees, including …… the 14 political leaders held at Al Qurain Prison.(Note No. 1230).
– “A large number of detainees among the 179 held by the NSA reported instances of mistreatment, including torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, at the hands of that agency. Among these complainants are the 14 political leaders who were subsequently transferred to the custody of the BDF (at Al Qurain Prison)… Some of these detainees, however, alleged that they continued to suffer mistreatment at Al Qurain Prison until 10 June .. ” (Note No. 1233).
– “The most common techniques used on detainees included the following: blindfolding; handcuffing; enforced standing for prolonged periods; beating; punching; hitting the detainee with rubber hoses (including on the soles of the detainee’s feet), cables, whips, metal, wooden planks or other objects; electrocution; sleep-deprivation; exposure to extreme temperatures; verbal abuse; threats of rape to the detainee or family members; and insulting the detainee’s religious sect (Shia)”(note 1234).
– “.many detainees were then held for weeks or even months with limited, if any, access to the outside world. In particular, there was no access to the courts to challenge the lawfulness of detention. Detainees were denied access to lawyers, sometimes for long periods and sometimes even until the day of the trial. In addition, the GoB withheld from detainees and/or their families information about the detainee’s whereabouts for periods ranging from days to weeks. ” (Note No. 1235).
– “These practices represent a violation to the stated article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ..” (Note No. 1237).
– “In addition, it is generally accepted that prolonged incommunicado detention may itself violate the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Where the family of a detainee is denied information as to the fact of detention or the whereabouts of the detainee, the anguish that family members suffer may render them, too, victims of violations of the same prohibition. The Commission notes that it is precisely when individuals are detained without access to the outside world, especially when they are denied access to lawyers and courts, that they are most vulnerable to torture or other prohibited mistreatment.” (Note No. 1237).
– “In some cases, the purpose of these practices is to get forced confessions and admissions, while in other cases it was intended for this treatment was the penalty and punishment ..” (Note No. 1238).
– “The Commission notes a number of statements by detainees consistently showing that those inflicting mistreatment expected impunity.” (Note No. 1240).
– “The Commission received evidence indicating that, in some cases, judicial and prosecutorial personnel may have implicitly condoned this lack of accountability.” (Note No. 1241).
2. In Annex II of the report of the BICI findings, summaries of statements sixty victims alleged torture, including political figures fourteen who were examined by forensic experts to the Commission (see cases: 1 to 12, 23 and 47).
3. In its recommendations concerning the treatment of detainees, in its report said:
– “The Commission recommends that all allegations of torture and similar treatment be investigated by an independent and impartial body, following the Istanbul Principles.616 The investigation should be capable of leading to the prosecution of the perpetrators, both direct and at all levels of responsibility. (Note No. 1246).
– “All victims of torture or mistreatment should receive compensation.” (Note No. 1248).
– “All victims of prolonged incommunicado detention should receive compensation” (Note No. 1249).
– “The burden of proving that treatment complies with the prohibition of torture and other mistreatment should be on the State” (Note No. 1253).
– “The judiciary and prosecutorial personnel should be trained on the need to ensure that their activities contribute to the prevention and eradication of torture and mistreatment” (Note No. 1255).
4. In the meeting held on 22.5.2012 the defence provided to the Supreme Court of Appeal set applications (installed in the reasons for judgment of the court pages 25 and 26) and was among those requests:
– Hearing the statements of the defendants separately.
– The inclusion of the technical reports produced by forensic experts of the BICI committee.
– Exclusion of the testimony of prosecution witnesses involved in the torture of suspects.
– The release of the accused giving any guarantees seen fit by the court.
The defence team also given a formal request to the court to investigate claims of torture relating to the case.
5. The reactions of the court to lawyers’ requests were as follows:
A. Court heard detailed testimony presented by the defendants (has been summarized in the text of the court’s decision on pages 25 and 26), and those certificates contained details of being subjected to ill-treatment and torture during the interrogation period.
B. Court did not respond during its meetings or in its ruling on the defense’s request to include technical reports prepared by the forensic medicine experts of the BICI Commission , where the defence did not receive a copy of these reports to be added within the case file and was not mentioned the court in its judgment.
C. As for the defence request to exclude testimony of prosecution witnesses involved in the torture of suspects, the court did not respond directly to the request but adopted mainly in convicting defendants on the investigation and testimony prosecution’s main witness in the case, who is an officer in the national security, who undertook the investigation and oversaw the arrest and initial investigation , and he is the main suspect in the torture the defendants , the court also did not rule out the statements of other prosecution witnesses who are all elements of the national security as well, and whom their limited role during their testimony was in the implementation of the arrest of the accused, and therefore they are accused of involvement in the violations that took place during the arrest and search.
D. With regard to the defence’s request to release the defendants – who has been in existence in prison about a year and a half – the court ignored that request, despite the special status of defendants as victims of torture and arbitrary detention, and thus still victims of torture in prison, while those accused of torture have impunity till date.
6. With regard to the recommendations of the BICI and the defence’s request to investigate the torture and ill-treatment and the relationship of that by virtue of conviction for the Court of Appeal:
A. Authorities did not yet implement the recommendation of the BICI committee which recommended : “an independent and impartial investigation to look into all allegations of torture and similar treatment in accordance with the principles of Istanbul ..”
B.The authorities formed in the Public Prosecution a section related to investigations on torture, but this section – although is not according to the principles of Istanbul – did not take the initiative to try to open an investigation with the defendants in this case throughout the period preceding the issuance of the Supreme Court of Cassation ruling.
C. the Court of Appeal Adopted in its judgment to condemn the accused was based on the testimony taken under torture and the results of investigations carried out in conditions which said it the BICI witnessed violations relating to non-integrity techniques of searches, arbitrary arrests, detention and incommunicado, in addition to torture and ill-treatment.
It says in the ruling issued by the court that: “There is a proof of authenticity and its proven, .. and that taking the recognition of both appellants (fifth and sixth) and and so the court is reassured to the correct confession on themselves and witnesses against the remaining appellants” (judgment of the Court of Appeal Page 38 ).
D. And without paying attention to what is stated in the BICI Report and the requests by lawyers lawyers to exclude certificates of prosecution witnesses involved in the torture, they have adopted the Court of Appeal in its judgment of conviction of the elements of the national security, as came also in the ruling: “as proven the charges against appellants and the reassurance from the court to the testimony of Major / Isa Sultan Al Sulaiti, Captain / Badr Ibrahim al-Ghaith (and other components of national security who arrested the defendants) “(appeal ruling Page 38).
7. From all what was stated above, we see a frequent conviction to what was documented by the BICI commuted stating that : ” “workers in the judiciary and public prosecution condoned implicitly for the lack of accountability”, and recommendations went unheeded on the investigate the torture and ill-treatment and “.. need to be functions of the judiciary and prosecutors General is a contributing factor in the prevention of torture and ill-treatment and eradicated. ”
Fourth: the arrest and trial in connection with freedom of expression, association and assembly:
1. In Section V of Chapter VI of the report of the BICI report, under the title: “arrest and trial in relation to freedom of expression, assembly and association”, the Committee recommended “… that all persons charged with offences involving political expression, not consisting of advocacy of violence, have their convictions reviewed and sentences commuted or, as the case may be, outstanding charges against them dropped.
“(Note No. 1291).
2. But the Supreme Court of Appeal – and with regard to freedom of expression, assembly and association – the judgment it has included the following:
– With regard to proven crimes attributed to the accused for charges first and second, the court relayed to text of Article 6 of the “Decree Law No. 58 of 2006 on the protection of society against terrorist acts,” which is not limited to the criminalization of any organization when “use force or terrorism “but adds to it,” any other illegal means. ” The Court adds: “it is not essential so that the regulation explicitly calls for use” and “.. terrorism in all its checks and literary means of pressure” .. “Is not required in other illicit means that up to a crime ..” (Note Securities governance Page 43).
– The court gave a broad definition of the use of force by saying: “It is not a condition of force in the situation to be military, but to “exercise force” may include other actions such as organizing demonstrations and use it as a tool to pressure the government ..” (Page 44).
– and with regard to prove charge (IV), which is “attempting to overthrow and change the country’s constitution and its monarchy .. etc.” The court relied on the text of Article 148 of the Penal Code, where it said in its interpretation: “.. and shows of meditation in this text that the crime stipulated meaning that it is not necessary by a harmful act,.. it is sufficient to achieve this event will be a physical destination of conduct psychological as it is the destination for his behavior without the need for actual availability of harm or danger .. ” And “.. is required for such a crime availability of criminal intent is the intention to over throw or change the constitution, the monarchy, or the form of government …” (Page 50).
– With regard to the charges contained in the item (VI) has responded court to request the Public Prosecutor “.. drop the charges contained in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 .. and then the charge remaining in this item is that the defendants promoted to overthrow or change the political system of the state by force by illegal means (ie, without the use of force) and that was by word and writing speeches in public forums and for the issuance and dissemination of data through the network of international information .. ” (Page 54).
The court relied on to prove this charge “.. what proved recordings of speeches and words .. and adjust their files and Editors ..” (Page 55).
– The Court upheld the guilty verdict on the charges contained in item (vii) and that relating to the possession and publications editors, and item (VIII) “.. as they publicly insulted the army of the Kingdom of Bahrain .. speeches in public forums and published data ..” The item (IX) as: “.. citizens spread to overseas news false information and rumors about the internal situation of the country which would undermine the prestige of the state and mind ..” The item X. as “.. openly incited verbally and in writing to hate people and their sect ..” The item (eleven) as “… called and organized and participated in rallies without notifying the competent authorities” (pages 55-58).
They are all charges are related to freedom expression and assembly.
3. Supreme Court of Appeals supported the judgments of the Court of National Safety, it did not take the recommendation of the BICI committee: “to cancel judgments and sentences issued in right of all persons who have been accused of committing crimes related to the expression of political and does not involve the call to violence ..”, and instead order convict defendants have proceeded to the Court:
– The use of the texts of the laws which mainly restrict freedoms of expressions and are incompatible with Bahrain’s obligations concerning international law of human rights, they did not only reject the defense challenge on the constitutionality of those laws, but the also changed its interpretation and adaptation which gave a completely changed meaning of the use of force and criminalize the exercise of public freedoms.
– the court relied to convict the defendants heavily on “.. what proved recordings of speeches and words .. and adjust their files and editors.” And despite the fact that the case file did not contain any files and prove calls for or incite violence. But that some of those editors (such as the Declaration of the Alliance for the Republic) explicitly call for the adoption of peaceful methods.
– As for the “recordings of speeches and the words” gave the defendants at all stages of the investigation and in testimony before the Court of Appeal that the speeches are evidence innocence of any advocacy of violence and not vice versa. lawyers pushed by stating that judged in the appellant had relied on spending conviction on the content of discs seized without displayed on the hearing to discuss defense, was endorsed by the Court of Appeal not heard the content of those recordings saying: “This court has set a hearing 07/17/2012 all recordings attributed issuance of the appellants, but they refused to attend the hearing set ..” (Note 66 of the judgment). The fact that the court did not reach appellants and their lawyers so, where they had withdrawn from the sessions in protest at the court’s insistence on holding hearings in secret without legal justification.
Fifth: The BICI denies external intervention but the appeal condemns some accused of spying:
1. In Chapter VI of the report of the BICI report under the title: “The involvement of foreign forces and foreign actors in the events of February and March 2011,” reported the following observations:
– “The Government of Bahrain has asserted that the Islamic Republic of Iran intervened in the domestic affairs of Bahrain during the events of February and March 2011” (Note No. 1566).
– “During the events of February and March 2011, the GoB claimed that certain opposition leaders, including some who had been residing abroad, consulted with the leadership of Hezbollah in Beirut in an effort to coordinate positions regarding the ongoing protests in Bahrain.” (note No. 1572).
– The BICI concluded to the following result: “The evidence presented to the Commission by the GoB on the involvement by the Islamic Republic of Iran in the internal affairs of Bahrain does not establish a discernable link between specific incidents that occurred in Bahrain during February and March 2011 and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Given that most of the claims made by the GoB related to allegations of intelligence operations undertaken by Iranian operatives, sources of which, by their nature, are not publicly available, the Commission has not been able to investigate or independently verify these allegations of Iranian involvement in the events of February and March 2011.”(note 1584 ).
2. Although the observations of the BICI committee came after taking note of the case file, and after investigations and interviews with various parties, the Supreme Court of Appeal chose in its judgment in this case to be based on what came in the security reports and the indictment prepared by the military prosecution, while neglecting What came in the report of the BICI and defences lawyers, court decided to :
“.. proven accusation assigned to each of the defendants first (Wahab Hussein) , second (Hassan Mushaima) and third (Jalil Mansour) and the availability of elements of the crime mentioned in item (III) – communication with those who are working for the benefit of the State foreign – in the right. ” (Appeal ruling Page 49).
Sixth: a final summary:
Thus it is clear inconsistencies numerous and large among its ruling the Court of Appeal supported the provisions of the courts of national safety, and what came in the report of BICI of the observations and conclusions which lead that all that the defendants in this case have not only exercised their fundamental freedoms in the regulation and expression, peaceful assembly but they were subjected to serious abuses during their arrest, detention and trial.
As is evident the Court did not respond to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry to investigate violations and to prosecute those involved. As is evident synergies of the Constitutional Court and the criminal courts and public prosecution and continuation in the previous approach, making this issue a stark example of the lack of independence of the judiciary in Bahrain, and lack of seriousness in implementing the recommendations of the fact-finding committee.
(End of Memorandum)