The Judge Ali Al-Dhahrani Operates the Civil Courts in the Same Manner as the National Safety Courts
This report was prepared following observations and analysis of the cases investigated by the Fourth High Criminal Court from 10 July until 10 September 2013. The report is based on both the testimonies of the defense in the various cases looked into by the aforementioned Court, and the observations of the representatives of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights who attended a selection of the court sessions.
Introduction:
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights expresses its deep concern over the Bahraini authorities continued restrictions against activists and citizens in general and the denial of their right to peacefully protest and demand their right to self-determination. The authorities continue to use politically motivated trials to attack activists and citizens. Coinciding with the security campaign led by the Bahraini authorities, the Fourth High Criminal Court, presided over by Judge Ali Al-Dhahrani, began on 10 July 2013 to investigate various cases in which prominent activists have been charged. The Fourth High Criminal Court, as activists and outside observers find it, lacks the basic fundamentals of a fair trial, as will be reviewed in this report.
The Right to a Fair Trial:
International and Bahraini laws state that the right to a fair trial cannot be neglected under any circumstances. After observing the cases investigated by the Fourth High Criminal Court, this report finds that violations of the most basic elements and components of a fair trial are clearly evident as the following details and cases explain:
- Publicity of Sessions
International law requires that all criminal trials are open for the public to attend, including the media. ‘Article 10 (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights): Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.’
Although there is no official regulation that forbids members of the press and human rights activists from attending the court sessions, which are supposed to be public, the procedures of Judge Al-Dhahrani make this a de facto rule. The journalist ‘Ali Turaif’ from the Alwasat newspaper was banned on more than one occasion from entering the courtroom, and was not provided with any justification. Families of detainees are also not permitted to attend the sessions, with the exception of one person per detainee; the authorities cite the small size of the courtrooms as justification.
- The Presumption of Innocence
Among the basic procedural guarantees under International and Bahraini laws is the presumption of innocence. ‘First clause, Article 11 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.’
The Case of the Karzakan Shotgun: ‘Three Detainees, Verdict Pronounced in Sunday’s Session on 15 September 2013’
The defense in the case referred to as ‘shotgun weapon – Karzakan’, where three citizens have been charged, stated that the three detainees (Jaffar Ahmed Ali, Hussein Mansoor Eid and Mustafa Abdulkareem) have been subjected to beating and abuse since their arrest. The defendants have been accused of the attempted murder of a police officer through the possession of firearms and homemade explosives. The defense demonstrated that the detainees are innocent of the charges against them based on a number of facts, such as the invalidity of confessions extracted under physical and mental torture. These illegal confessions also contradicted other evidence in the case. The detainee Hussein Mansoor Eid was forced to make a contradictory confession against his companions after being subjected to coercion. The two other detainees ‘Jaffar and Mustafa’ were also subjected to coercion, beating and mental torture in order to confess to crimes they did not commit.
In addition to the contradictory statements that were forcibly extracted from the defendants, this report also finds the prosecution’s investigation to be inadequate, and demonstrated a disregard for the evidence. One of the witnesses stated in the interrogation report in the Public Prosecution that he suffered from a wound caused by a live bullet and a bruise in his right leg. However, he responded to questions from Judge Al-Dhahrani that he was injured, and that none of the security officers with him were injured. He also stated before the Public Prosecution that he witnessed three people carrying something in their hands, while he stated before court that he only saw one person carrying something. One of the witnesses from the security forces in the trial stated that while chasing the offenders, the battery on their wireless radio died, which prevented them from calling for further support from the security forces to chase the fugitives. However, the other witness contradicted this statement when he said that the three citizens were reported arrested in Karzakan by the use of the handheld radio device.
The lawyers went as far as pushing for the invalidity of the lawsuit especially in the absence of concrete evidence that implicates the three detainees. Since their arrest, the public prosecution has not provided any proof that the accused possessed any weapon, and their fingerprints were not found on the seized weapons. The investigation could not conclude that the three detainees used anything that prevents their fingerprints from being detected on the weapons, such as gloves, and their clothing was not marked with gunpowder (see: http://manamavoice.com/news-news_read-15100-0.html).
The Citizen with Dual Bahraini-American Nationality Taqi Al-Maidan and His Companions: The Verdict Hearing Session on Thursday 26 September 2013
Al-Maidan was arrested at dawn on Sunday 7 October 2012 from his home by masked civilians after breaking the front door of the house which caused panic and intimidated the family. Al-Maidan was accused of attempting to murder several police officers, setting fire to a vehicle owned by the Ministry of Interior, the possession of flammable canisters, and assembling in a public place consisting of more than five people with the intention to breach security, commit crimes and attack the police forces.
The lawyer Mohammed Al-Jishi insisted on the invalidity of the investigations regarding the detainee Taqi Al-Maidan and stated that the charges are legally void because they are based on testimonies of unnamed witnesses, which the prosecution cites as confidential sources. The investigation drew its conclusions from a single, confidential source, and since the credibility of the source can not be confirmed, the investigation is therefore invalid. Al-Jishi also emphasized the invalidity of initially arresting the defendant, which makes all subsequent procedures invalid. In addition, the prosecution has not presented any evidence that proves that Al-Maidan is implicated in the charges against him, which further supports his innocence and indicates that he ought to be released (see: http://www.alwasatnews.com/3963/news/read/792605/1.html). The Bahrain Center for Human Rights previously released a statement in which it denounces the detention of Al-Maidan without providing him access to legal representation and adequate medical care (see: http://bahrainrights.hopto.org/ar/node/5561).
The Lawyer Abdulla Zen-el-deen: Denied Access to the Evidence that Proves the Innocence of the Al-Dair Bombing Defendants
The Public Prosecution referred four citizens to court after accusing them with the attempted murder of a citizen and police officers by hiding an explosive device in the village of Dair. The lawyer of one of the defendants in the case, Abdulla Zen-el-deen, requested in three consecutive sessions to present the evidence that contains security camera films of the incident. However, the Judge continued to refuse the request (see: http://www.alwasatnews.com/3999/news/read/801719/1.html). The detainees confirm that the road in which the government claims the crime took place has a security surveillance camera covering the alleged location of the crime, and this footage could clearly indicate to the perpetrator (see: http://www.alwasatnews.com/3988/news/read/799084/1.html).
The Media Violates International Conventions and Conspires with the Prosecution and Court by Publishing Photos of Defendants Being Convicted
In the court session known as the 14 February organization, the lawyer Jassim Al-Sarhan spoke about violations to the defendants’ rights via the publishing of photographs and information about defendants in the media before their trial with the intention of defaming the defendants. This is considered a clear and explicit violation of international conventions and the Bahraini constitution, as it is incompatible with the principle that the ‘defendant is innocent until proven guilty’ (see: http://www.alwasatnews.com/3961/news/read/792145/1.html). Bahrain’s official TV station broadcasted photos of detainees in cases where an investigation was pending; the Public Prosecution justified this by saying that there are some exceptional cases where such an act is acceptable (see: http://manamavoice.com/news-news_read-4692-0.html). The Ministry of Human Rights said in an official statement that the amendment made on Article 246 of the Penal Code permits publishing photos and names of defendants before their conviction (see: http://www.albiladpress.com/article202846-1.html). One of the detainees in the case where the defendant was charged with burning a bank cash machine spoke of the same violation, which violates their rights by broadcasting their photos on official state TV and media before being convicted. However, the judge in the case, Judge Al-Dhahrani, interrupted the defendant and asked him to be silent.
Convicting an individual in court without demonstrating any evidence that demonstrates his guilt in the act for which he stands accused, deprives him of his right to being presumed innocent.
- The Defendant’s Right to Consult with Lawyers and Prepare a Defense
International and Bahraini laws state that criminal suspects must be granted adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense, including the ability to communicate with lawyers. ‘Paragraph (d), Clause 3, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it’.
The presence of a lawyer is essential to the defense in order to guarantee that the defendant’s statements are made accurately and with a reassured will. In general, the ability of detainees to meet with their lawyers was found to be either weak or non-existent, especially during the first periods of detention, in most of the cases investigated by the Fourth High Criminal Court under the internationally criticized Terrorism Law (which violates the Bahraini National Constitution).
Denying the Rights of The Detainee Faisal Al-Alawi in Meeting With His Lawyer, in the Case of ‘Imam Army’
The former member of the Bahraini military, Faisal Al-Alawi, was arrested from Oman soon after the signing of a security agreement among the GCC countries on 22 January 2013. He was accused of participating in a terrorism cell known locally as the ‘Imam Army’. The lawyer Minan Al-Durazi mentioned that she filed a request to meet her client Al-Alawi, however Judge Al-Dhahrani cancelled the request due to a mistake made by the detention center. When the mistake was corrected, he refused to sign the corrected letter.
Raihanna Al-Musawi, Accused in the Case ‘14 February Organization’ and Detonating the Formula 1, No Official Lawyer
Raihanna Al-Musawi was arrested in April 2013, and her family declared that they were not able to officially appoint a lawyer until recently. The lawyer Abdulla Zen-el-deen, who represents the lawyer Mohammed Al-Tajer’s office, is handling her case, although she was not given an opportunity to appoint him officially and to document the appointment.
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights concluded that more than 95% of detainees in the 28 cases investigated by the Fourth High Criminal Court were denied their right to the a presence of a lawyer during the interrogation in the cases against them. This makes the confessions made by the defendants highly doubtful, particularly when considered with the increase in the number of complaints regarding torture and mistreatment filed by the detainees which include allegations of being subjected to mental and physical torture to confess.
- The Right to Summon and Question Witnesses
The right to a fair trial, according to the principles of international law, includes the principle known as ‘equal opportunity’, which means that the parties obtain the same opportunities and possibilities while presenting their view of the case. Paragraph (e) of Clause 3 of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states in the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: ‘To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him’.
In the Case of the Imam Army: Prosecution Witnesses Depend on Confidential Sources, and Some of Them Cannot Remember Details
On 15 August 2013, the Fourth High Criminal Court refused to listen to the statements of the defendants in the case of the Imam Army (see: http://bahrainrights.hopto.org/ar/node/6350). This was the second time since the Court began investigating the case that the Court President, Judge Ali Khalifa Al-Dhahrani, refused to provide the defendants with an opportunity to speak before court regarding the violations against their rights during arrest, detention and interrogation. At a time when the Court did not allow the defendants to speak about the violations they were subjected to during their detention, the Court began listening to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, one of which has been accused of taking part in several torture cases (see: http://www.alwasatnews.com/3972/news/read/795060/1.html).
The first witness in the trial, Mohammed Khalid Al-Saeedi, stated that ‘confidential sources’ led him to conclude the defendants took part in establishing a ‘terrorist cell’. Al-Saeedi added that the defendants were communicating with each other through modern communication programs such as Viber, Skype and email, and that they had Omani and Iranian SIM cards. The witness could not answer all the questions of the lawyers regarding the details of the case. His answers varied between stating that the information is ‘mentioned in the investigation’s report’, or ‘I forgot’ or ‘they are confidential sources’. Also, his reply to one of the lawyers’ question contradicted his statement in the investigation report.
Judge Al-Dhahrani to the Lawyer of the Defendants in the Case of Killing the Police Officer Mohammed Asef: Submit an Explanatory Memorandum
The lawyer Zahra Shabib, who is representing the detainees in the case of killing police officer Mohammed Asef, submitted a request to the Court to present the detainees to a neutral medical committee for examination. When she began to explain the reasons behind her request, Judge Ali Al-Dhahrani interrupted her and asked her to submit a memorandum explaining those reasons (see: http://www.alwasatnews.com/3974/news/read/795629/1.html). Shabib stated that she was explaining the reasons to the Court in less than two minutes, however, the Court did not allow anyone to speak, neither the defendants nor their lawyers.
In the Case of Organizing 14 February: the Court Refused to Listen to the Testimonies of Detainees
On 11 July 2013, the trial of 50 citizens in the Fourth High Criminal Court began. It was clear from the first Court session that this was a mock trial with the aim to bring politically motivated sentences against the defendants. The Court refused to listen to the torture allegations from the defendants, or even to document the allegations properly. The court refused to release the detainees although they were at risk of being subjected to further torture on their return to prison. The Judge in the case did not take note of the demands from one of the defense lawyers, and he manipulated the words of one of the defendants to describe torture as threat (see: http://bahrainrights.hopto.org/ar/node/6228). The defense demanded a response from the judicial panel, but the Supreme Judicial Council did not make a decision regarding the demand (see: http://www.alwasatnews.com/3986/news/read/798550/1.html).
Out of a concern of being used to only provide the appearance of the government’s adherence to the laws that ensure a defendant’s access to a lawyer, the lawyers in the case withdrew from representing the detainees, and the detainees in the case released a statement refusing to attend the court. However, the Court did not pay any attention to these motions, and will announce a verdict in the case on 29 September 2013 (see: http://bahrainrights.org/en/node/6362).
- Torture and Self-Condemnation.
International law guarantees all defendants their right to refuse to testify against themselves or confess guilt. Paragraph (g), Clause 3 of Article (14) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states the detainees right to ‘Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt’.
Articles 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention Against Torture state the following:
Article (12): Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Article (13): Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.
Article (16):
- Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.
International and local human rights organizations released many reports detailing allegations of torture and mistreatment during interrogation and detention. The Bahrain Center for Human Rights documented numerous cases that prove, leaving no room for doubt, that the security apparatuses practices systematic torture against detainees and practices various methods of physical and mental abuse. The methods include blindfolding and handcuffing from behind, in addition to sexual harassment and threats of rape.
Ridha Al-Ghasra: Accused in Various Cases, Sentenced to 41 Years in Prison
On 24 May 2013, Ridha Abdulla Isa Al-Ghasra (25 years old) was brutally arrested after being surrounded by civilian cars when he was on his motorbike. Activists and Twitter users published on their Twitter accounts a sound recording of a person screaming from pain, and claimed that the sound recording is of Ridha Al-Ghasra’s mistreatment while the security forces beat and tortured him on the street (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxZuVSbPeXQ ). Pro-government Twitter accounts published photos of Al-Ghasra while he was handcuffed and lying on the ground with blood running down his face. The Bahrain Center for Human Rights documented his torture in detail (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxZuVSbPeXQ).
Hussein Ramadan: Accused in the Case of the 14 February Organization, Waiting for the Special Investigation Unit
Hussein Ramadan Mohammed Shaban was arrested and his wife was threatened with rape wife at the time of his arrest if he refused to corporate with the police officers. He was detained for six days in the Criminal Investigation Department, where it was stated that he was forced to stand for the entire period of time; he was also reportedly blindfolded at this time. In addition to this, he was deprived of sleep during the entire time of his arrest at the Criminal Investigation Department. He was handcuffed from behind for long periods of time; this caused him shoulder and back pain, which he still suffers from. According to statements, Shaban was threatened with rape if he refused to sign the confessions, and he was continuously subjected to verbal harassment. Since the day his lawyer submitted a claim that was tortured, Ramadan has waited to meet with the Special Investigation Unit.
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights prepared a report that proves the systematic torture that the detainees are subjected to under the title ‘Bahrain an Oasis for Torture’ (see: http://bahrainrights.hopto.org/ar/node/6200). The report presented various cases of torture allegations revealing the Public Prosecution’s involvement in forcing detainees to confess to accusations that lack any concrete evidence.
Neutrality of the Court
Clause 1 of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states, ‘All persons shall be equal (…) In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.’
However, a number of trials investigated by the Fourth High Criminal Court do not meet this requirement. In each of the cases known as the Imam Army case and the case known as the ‘14 February Coalition’, there is a direct conflict of interest that invalidates the neutrality of the Court against defendants.
- Among the charges against the defendants is the charge of attacking the provisions of the Constitution and dissolving the parliament which is headed by Judge Ali Al-Dhahrani’s father. This can be considered a conflict of interest.
- Among the charges against the defendants is the charge of attempting to overthrow the government represented by the Al-Khalifa family, which is the same family of the court member Judge Hamad Al-Khalifa. This can also be considered a conflict of interest.
Although the lawyers asked for a response from the judicial panel to look into the case according to Article 211 of the Bahraini Criminal Procedures Law for the above mentioned reasons, the court neglected to take a decision in the request and continued to investigate the charges in the trial. The judge also set a date for the verdict in the case of the 14 February Coalition, despite the fact that a number of lawyers boycotted attending the biased court.
Human Rights Watch Acknowledges ‘No Justice in Bahrain’:
Human Rights Watch had released on 28 February 2012 a detailed report entitled ‘No Justice in Bahrain’ (see: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/bahrain0212webwcover.pdf) and which addressed the serious violations of the right to proper litigation procedures in the military trials in 2011, as well as politically motivated trials in regular criminal courts before February 2011. The serious violations included depriving the defendants from the right to consulting lawyers and presenting their defense, and failing to investigate plausible allegations that the defendants were subjected to torture and mistreatment during the investigation and interrogation period. Human Rights Watch concluded that the gross violations of the right to a fair trial in political cases do not only reflect the bad practices of some of the members of the prosecution and judiciary, but also reflects the serious and systematic problems in the Bahraini criminal justice system.
Judge Ali Al-Dhahrani headed the highly criticized military courts in 2011, and is now operating the Fourth High Criminal Court with the same approach as during his tenure in charge of the military courts. This judge also delivered the sentences against the defendants in the case of the 21 activists in the case of the alliance for the republic, the case against the medical staff who treated injured protesters, Jalila Al-Salman and Mahdi Abu-deeb, and the lawyer Mohammed Al-Tajer, which the cases in the Human Rights Watch report are based on.
‘Bassiouni’ Condemns the Judicial System in Bahrain:
Doctor Mohammed Sharif Bassiouni, Head of the Bahraini Independent Commission of Inquiry, criticized the breaches carried out by the judicial system during what was known as the National Safety period where he mentions in his letter addressed to Bahrain’s ruler Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa that it is his duty to reform the judiciary and the judicial procedures in order to avoid repeating those transgressions. Bassiouni concludes that:
- The security apparatuses violated the correct arrest measures and intimidated citizens
- Subjected many detainees to torture and other forms of physical and mental abuse
- Spread a culture of impunity represented by not holding officials accountable within the security organization
While the Bahraini regime claims its adherence to the recommendations of the Bahraini Independent Commission of Inquiry, this merely represents a public relations campaign devoid of real reforms. The Bahrain News Agency mentioned that in order to prepare the judicial system in a manner where it can deliver justice and equity among all, and in order to implement the recommendations of the Bahraini Independent Commission of Inquiry, the government carried out the following recommendations: (see: http://www.bna.bh/portal/mobile/news/499727)
- Transferring the jurisdiction of investigating deaths, torture and mistreatment from the Ministry of Interior to the Public Prosecution and establishing an independent panel within the Public Prosecution office to monitor these cases. The BCHR prepared a detailed report titled ‘The special investigation unit, false achievements and apparent complicity to avenge the political detainees and prisoners of conscience’ (see: http://bahrainrights.hopto.org/ar/node/6371).
- Enabling the regular civil judicial system to review all the trials that took place under the militarized National Safety courts. While it has been demonstrated that many citizens who received sentences in the National Safety courts were not provided an opportunity to a retrial in the civil courts. Among them was the nurse and photographer Hassan Matooq who is serving a three years imprisonment for charges related to taking photos of injured protesters (see: http://bahrainrights.hopto.org/ar/node/4874).
- The re-trial of the medical staff convicted in the National Safety courts; its result was convicting a number of the medical staff and upholding the imprisonment sentences against them. At least three of the medical staff convicted in National Safety courts are still serving prison sentences.
- Annulling all charges related to freedom of expression, which included 334 people. The BCHR is still documenting a large number of cases that demonstrate the targeting of activists and citizens due to expressing their opinion. Such is the case in the trial known as ‘Rebellion’, where the defendants are a well-known blogger and a well-known photographer (see: http://bahrainrights.hopto.org/ar/node/6325). In addition to arresting a child under the age of 18 and trying him for tweets he published on Twitter (see: http://bahrainrights.hopto.org/ar/node/6202).
- Setting up a training program for the Public Prosecution members at the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences and the American Bar Association to train the Public Prosecution members on how to deal with the cases that include human rights violations and mistreatment allegations. The lawyers confirmed during a press conference for the defense in the case of the 14 February organization that the training program was only limited to lawyers, and presently there is no real implementation of this recommendation.
- Cooperating with the UN Office for Drugs and Crime to make use of their independent experts in the area of criminal evidence and corrective measures.
The Fourth Criminal Court Investigated Twenty-Eight Cases With Political Motives:
The following list details the cases investigated by the Fourth High Criminal Court through 10 September 2013, according to information prepared by the Bahrain Center for Human Rights with the assistance of local newspapers. The details of the cases are as following:
|
No. |
Case |
Number of Defendants |
Date of Verdict |
|
1 |
Attempted murder of a police officer, possession of weapons and homemade ammunition and resisting arrest (Karzakan shotgun) |
3 |
15 September |
|
2 |
Placing a bomb on the main street in Sitra area, and assaulting two police officers |
2, 3 |
19 September |
|
3 |
14 February Organization (boycotting sessions and lawyers’ withdrawal) |
50 |
29 September |
|
4 |
Attempted murder of a police officer by attacking the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Government House), criminal arson, illegal assembly, rioting, and possession of a ‘Molotov’ cocktail. |
7 |
19 September |
|
5 |
Attempted murder of several police officers, arson of a vehicle owned by the Ministry of Interior, possession of flammable canisters and assembling in a public place made of up more than 5 people its aim is to breach public security and commit crimes and assaulting police forces (Taqi Al-Maidan – U.S. National) |
1 |
27 September |
|
6 |
Imam Army (some of the lawyers withdrew) |
24 |
Not yet determined |
|
7 |
Attempted murder of an immigrant worker by detonating a bomb in his hand near an Elementary school in Dair and the attempted murder of a police officer (Dair bombing) |
4 |
3 October |
|
8 |
Attacking a police officer, illegal assembly and possession of a ‘Molotov’ cocktail |
1 |
15 September |
|
9 |
Attacking Sitra police station |
32 |
Not yet determined |
|
10 |
Burning tires and illegal assembly in Muharraq |
|
Not yet determined |
|
11 |
Burning a car and tires and illegal assembly in Jabalat-Habshi |
|
Not yet determined |
|
12 |
Murder of police officer Mohammed Asef Khan in the area of Sihla by firing a flammable remote projectile |
9 |
Not yet determined |
|
13 |
Assembly and beating a police officer in Sanabis |
3 |
Not yet determined |
|
14 |
A pregnant citizen charged with ‘beating and cursing 3 police officers’ |
1 |
Not yet determined |
|
15 |
Illegal assembly, rioting and arson, possession of flammable canisters and assaulting security officers (Salmabad) |
2 |
Not yet determined |
|
16 |
Illegal assembly, rioting and arson, possession of flammable canisters and assaulting security officers (Hamad Town – Roundabout 18) |
3 |
Not yet determined |
|
17 |
Illegal assembly, rioting and arson, possession of flammable canisters and assaulting security officers (Manama) |
6 |
Not yet determined |
|
18 |
Rioting and arson on Sheikh Khalifa highway (Abu-Quwa) |
2 |
1 Year Imprisonment |
|
19 |
Attempting to carry out a terrorist act in the Formula 1 race |
2 |
Not yet determined |
|
20 |
Joining a group against the law, its aim is to suspend the provisions of the law and prevent the state institutions from carrying out their work, assaulting the personal freedom of citizens and causing harm to national unity, in addition to financing terrorism groups |
1 |
Not yet determined |
|
21 |
Attempted murder of a security officer, attempted criminal arson, illegal assembly and possession of ‘Molotov’ cocktails – Jari Al-Sheikh |
3 |
Not yet determined |
|
22 |
Illegal assembly, arson and attacking a security patrol – Al-Jabriya School |
1 |
Not yet determined |
|
23 |
Al-Riffa bombing |
3 |
Not yet determined |
|
24 |
Illegal assembly and criminal arson – Ras-ruman |
2 |
Not yet determined |
|
25 |
Bombing an ATM – Sanad and Sitra |
5 |
Not yet determined |
|
26 |
Attempting to attack Al-Nabih Saleh police station |
18 |
Not yet determined |
|
27 |
Arson, illegal assembly and possession of ‘Molotov’ cocktails in Maameer |
9 |
Not yet determined |
|
28 |
Possession and import of illegal weapons |
8 |
Not yet determined |
Based on the above, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights demands for the authorities in Bahrain to:
- Release all political detainees and prisoners of conscience and end the targeting of activists; all charges against them must be dropped, and the cases lacking the elements of a fair trial must end.
- Instigate a transparent and impartial investigation in the torture and mistreatment allegations filed by the detainees and to compensate them in a manner that befits the extent of their suffering.
- Hold accountable the perpetrators of the abuse and torture, no matter how high their job rank.
- Reform the judicial system in a real and serious manner.
- Stop using the judiciary as a tool for suppression and political vengeance.
- Annul the Terrorist Law and amend the Penal Code according to international agreements and commitments.
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights also demands the international community, especially the American and British administration to:
- Stop supporting the Bahraini regime in its repressive campaign against peaceful citizens.
- Support the Bahraini people in obtaining their right to self-determination granted to them by International Covenants and Conventions.