القرار الصادر من اللجنة الأفريقية لحقوق الإنسان و الشعوب بخصوص طلب وقف أحكام الإعدام الصادرة في قضية متهمي عرب شركس .

1. AFRICAN UNION
(fi)>
UNION AFRICAINE
African Commissionon Human& Peoples' Rights
UNIAO AFRICANA
Commission Africaine des Droits de I'Homme & des Peuples
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, Western Region,P. O. Box 673, Banjul, TheGambia
Tel: (220) 4410505/4410506; Fax: (220) 4410504
E-mail: au-banjul(8)africa-union orp: Web www.achpr.org
Communication 563/15
Mohammed Bakri Mohammed Harun & 7 Others
The Arab Republic of Egypt
Done by the
African Commission on Human andPeoples' Rights
April 2015
Banjul, The Gambia
Hon, Commissioner KAYTFESI
Chairperson ofthe African Commission
on Human and Peoples' Rights
Dr. Mary Maboreke
Secretary to Hie African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights

2. Communication 563/15 - Mohammed Bakri Mohammed Harun & 7 Others v. The
Arab Republic of Egypt
56th Ordinary Session:
Summary of the Complaint:
1. This Complaint was received by the Secretariat of the African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights (the Secretariat) on 07 April 2015. It is filed by
Ahmed Mefreh Al-Saidy (hereinafter the Complainant) on behalfof Mohammed
Bakri Mohammed Harun & 7 Others (hereinafter the Victims), against the Arab
Republic of Egypt (hereinafter, Egypt or the Respondent State)1. Additional
information was provided to the Secretariat on 11 April, 2015.
2. The Complainant alleges that on 21 October 2014, the Military Criminal Court in
the Haykstep area in Cairo,in the Respondent State issued its verdict in a case2:
(a) sentencing to death six (6) Egyptian civilians namely: (i) Mohammed
Bakri Mohammed Harun; (ii) Hani Mustafa Amin Amer; (iii)
Muhammad Ali Afifi Badawi; (iv) Abdel Rahman Sayed Rizk Abu
Srei'; (v) Khalid Farag Mohammed Mohammed Ali; and (vi) Islam
Sayed Ahmed Ibrahim; and
(b) sentencing to life imprisonment two (2) Egyptian civilians namely: (i)
Ahmed Abu Srei' Mohamed Hassanein; and (ii) Hossam Hosny Abdel
3. He avers that the above-named eight accused persons who are the Victims in
this Complaint are civilians who faced a military trial before an unnatural judge
[sic], under the spread of military trials for civilians which has been prevalent in
Egypt since the military coup of the 3rd ofJuly 2013.
4. The Complainant submits that the Victims had been accused by the military
prosecutor with bombing Mostorod checkpoint and Al-Amireya checkpoint, and
killing soldiers, on 19 March 2014. Also, in the press statement by the Interior
Minister of the Respondent State, announcing their arrest, they were allegedly
described as "seven of the most prominent cadres of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis
organization", and accused of being "involved in most of the assassinations and
bombings in the country, especially the attempted assassination of the Interior
Minister, the assassination of General Mohammed Al-Saeed, the bombing of the
Departments ofSecurity inCairo and Dakahleya, and targeting vital and military
installations."
1The Republic of Egypt ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on
1984.
2Case No.43for the year 2014 for militarycrimesNorth ofCairo.
tGRET*Rto/-

3. 5. He further avers that the death sentences passed on the Victims by the Military
Criminal Court have been reviewed by the Grand Mufti of Egypt, whose
authority lies in interpreting Islamic Sharia in the country, and whose feedback
(i.e. on religious opinion) to the judges is considered unbinding and confidential.
It is alleged that in this case, he has approved the death sentence.
6. Further, the Complainant submits that the Military Criminal Court which tried
the accused (the Military Court) had not been responsive with regard to the
requests of the defense attorneys during the trial proceedings, which is
considered a clear violation of the defence rights during trial. In this regard, the
defense attorneys have allegedly submitted a number of requests that would
have had a major repercussion on changing the course of the trial and the charges
submitted by the public prosecution; ones which relied exclusively on
investigations of the security and intelligence apparatuses.
7. He alleges that the key requests that had been submitted to the Military Court
included re-interrogation of the accused persons, because all confessions made
by them had been extracted under physical and psychological coercion during
the period of their enforced disappearance within the El-Azouli Military
Prison.They claim that the accused faced a military prosecutor, were interrogated
in the absence of lawyers and without guarantees to ensure sound interrogation,
and that moreover that the confessions were extracted from them under torture.
8. Furthermore, the Complainant alleges that the accused were not able to sign a
petition to appeal the Court's verdict, as the authorities in El-Aqrab Prison in the
Tora prisons region did not enable them, especially that the military tribunals'
law requires the accused to sign the petition to appeal by themselves, and the
appeal lawyer cannot do so on their behalf. Allegedly, only the defendant Abdel
Rahman Sayed Rizk Abu Srei' presented an appeal due to his young age, as a 19
year-old, and his mother appealed the decision on his behalf.
9. He claims however that this appeal was rejected by the military appeals court on
24 March 2015, thus making the death sentence verdict against him and others
final after he had exhausted all routes of appeal. He submits that this verdict will
therefore be implemented as the steps that will be taken after the current verdict
of the military appeals court, in accordance with the law of the military courts, is
that the President of the Republic will be signing the death sentence and the
verdict will thereafter be executed.
10. With regard to the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the Victims sentenced
to death, the Complainant alleges that Mohammed Bakri Mohammed Harun was
arrested on November 28th, 2013 as he was walking in a neighbourhood with his
wife and children, and that he was sent to an unknown location, while his wife
and children were held in the Zagazig Security Department for 10 days.
Thereafter, his wife and children were thrown into the street after every]

4. wife had was stolen. He further claims that the family was thereafter surprised to
find out that Muhammed's name was added to the case of the alleged bombings
which took place respectively a month and four months after his abduction. He
had allegedly remained in detention in El-Azouly Prison until 21 March 2014,
while his name was added in the bombing of the Security Department of
Dakahleya on 24 January 2014, and to the bombings of Mostorod and Arabs
Sharkas checkpoints which took place in March 2014.
11. Hani Mustafa Amin Amer was allegedly arrested on September 16th, 2013 in the
administrative building of the Third District in Ismailia, where uniformed
personnel arrested him and deported him to El-Azouli Military Prison. No one
knew anything about him until 27 January 2014, when he was presented to the
State Security Prosecutor without the presence of a lawyer. Hani had allegedly
been subjected to severe torture, and was transferred to El-Aqrab prison in late
March 2014. Therefore, on 10 May 2014, it came as a surprise to his family and his
lawyer that his name was added to a military case, although he was abducted
before the events of the case occurred.
12. Furthermore, the Complainant states that Mohamed Ali Afifi Badawi, was
arrested on November 19th, 2013, together with his wife, when security forces
attacked his apartment. His wife and children were locked in a room in the same
building for 15 days, and beaten up. Thereafter, his wife was sent to the Chief
Investigator in Kaha, robbed, and then released, while her husband was taken to
an unknown location. In April 2014, she discovered that her husband was in El-
Aqrab prison and that visiting him was not allowed.
13. On his part, Abdel Rahman Sayed Rizk Abu Srei' was allegedly arrested on
March 16th, 2014, from a travel agency in Cairo, and was detained in the State
Security headquarters in Lazoughli for about a week, until he was transferred to
El-Aqrab Prison after his second hearing in the case, when his name was
included in the Arab Sharkas military case.
14. Khalid Farag Mohammed Mohammed Ali and Islam Sayed Ahmed Ibrahim are
also alleged to have been arrested together on March 16th, 2014 from a travel
agency in Cairo. They were allegedly transferred to El-Azouli Prison, where
Khalid was subjected to the worst kinds of torture in retaliation for his prior
escape from them, including the smashing of his knee. It is also stated that
Khalid's father reported his abduction by way of petition to the Attorney
General3.
15. The Complainantcontends that the acts alleged aboveviolate many provisions of
the African Charter and are also inconsistent with other regional and
international human rights standards as follows:
3 No. 9157/2014

5. (a) The death sentence against the 6 Victims violates many provisions of the
African Charter, including Articles 4, 6, and 7(1);
(b) The trial of civilians before military courts is in violation of the right to fair
trial as recognised by the African Commission and other similar bodies;
(c) Non-Compliance by the Military Court with all rights concerning fair
trials amounts to arbitrary deprivation of life as recognised by the African
Commission and other similar bodies;
(d) Non-exclusion of evidence extracted as a result of torture or other coercive
means from the judicial proceedings by the Military Court amounts to a
violation of the suspects' human rights, contrary to international human
rights standards; and
(e) The enforced disappearances of the defendants inside a military prison are
in violation of Articles 7 & 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and other regional and international human rights
standards.
16 As regards exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Complainant avers that with
regard to the death sentence local remedies have been exhausted as defense
attorneys of one of the suspects - Rahman Sayed Rizk Abu Srei'- had challenged
the death sentence before the Court of Cassation, which on March 24th, 2015, had
upheld the same4; and that, as the litigation system in Egypt is a two-level
(degree) system, upholding a verdict on the second degree (in this case, by the
Cassation Court) represents a final exhaustion of the local remedies and makes
the sentence against Abu Srei' and others final and unchallengeable in local
courts.
17 He therefore submits that at this point, the execution of the death sentence is
expected to take place at any time, and that he understands that the Government
of the Respondent State has set a date for the execution; thus warranting the
immediate intervention of the Commission. He did not however specify the
proposed date of execution.
18 On the basis of the above, he also claims that the Communication is exempt from
the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies in line with the jurisprudence of
the Commission, on account that there is no access to justice at this point in time,
due to the serious and massive violations of human rights in the Respondent
State and the obvious ineffectiveness of the process of appeal. He also submits
that there are no local remedies which are available, effective or sufficient, as
required for purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Articles alleged to have been violated
19 On the basis on the facts presented, the Complainant alleges the violation of
Articles 1,4, 6, and 7 of the African Charter
4See paragraph 9 above.

6. Prayers:
20 From the submissions before the Commission, the Complainant prays the African
Commission:
(a) To grant provisional measures to prevent the execution of the Victims that
were sentenced to death; and
(b) To find the violations of human rights by the Respondent State as alleged.
Procedure
21 The Complaint was received at the Secretariat of the Commission on 07 April
2015, and receipt was acknowledged on 13 April 2015.
Analysis of the African Commission on Seizure
22 The African Commission is of the view that the Complaint contains all the
information required under Rule 93(2) of its Rules of Procedure.
23 The African Commission also finds that the Complaint reveals prima facie
violations of the African Charter.
24 The African Commission is also of the view that the request for provisional
measures meets the criteria provided under Rule 98 (1) of the Rules of Procedure
of the Commission.
Decision of the African Commission on Seizure
25 Based on the above analysis, the African Commission decides:
(a) To be seized of this Communication; and
(b) To grant the request for Provisional Measures.
26 The African Commission calls on the Complainant to present evidence and
arguments on Admissibility within two (2) months in accordance with Rule
105(1) of its Rules of Procedure.
Done in Banjul, The Gambia
April 2015