The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) is gravely concerned by yesterday’s decision of the Special Chamber of the Criminal Court in Tora to postpone, once again, the trial of prominent Egyptian human rights activist Alaa Abdel Fattah. The night before the trial, the presiding Judge Mohammed El-Fikki informed the local press that Mr Abdel Fattah’s hearing, scheduled to take place yesterday, 22 July, was cancelled and postponed until 6 August, for “maintenance reasons”, without informing his lawyers or family.
This postponement delays the Court’s consideration of Mr Abdel Fattah’s application for re-trial and potentially results in keeping him in custody longer than necessary, together with the other 24 defendants who were sentenced in abstentia to 15 years of prison on 11 June (for allegedly breaching Egypt’s controversial Protest Law).
EMHRN observers on the ground received information suggesting that the reason Tora Compound is closed may be a result of an allegedly ongoing construction of a soundproof glass-encased metal cage for defendants in the “court” room. The use by Egypt’s judiciary of sound-proof “glass cages” for defendants during trial first gained public attention during the ongoing trial of Egypt’s Ex-President Mohammed Morsi.
Worryingly, Egypt’s judiciary has repeatedly resorted to keeping defendants in metal barred cages during trial. While these “standard” cages are highly inappropriate, creating an image of “guilt” (the defendant already being behind bars), they allow constant communication between the defendants and their legal representatives. The use of sound-proof glass cages, however, undermines the defendant’s ability to express himself and to communicate with his lawyers, in blatant violation of the right to a fair trial.
One of the key standards of a fair trial is that a defendant has the right to be present at trial. This guarantee is based on the need for (a) the accused to fully hear the prosecution’s case, (b) to put forward his defence and to assist his counsel in doing so, (c) to refute or provide information and/or to enable his counsel to refute evidence, and (d) to advise his counsel in the examination of witnesses.
Under no circumstances should there be any restrictions on a defendant’s ability to hear the case being made against him and his ability to instruct his lawyers in response. The use of soundproof glass cages clearly tampers with, and may, depending on the judge’s actions, fundamentally breach this right. A defendant’s right to be present at his trial should be absolute and may under no circumstances be left to the discretion of the presiding judge.
EMHRN calls upon Egypt’s judiciary to refrain from using cages during trial and to respect the fundamental human rights of defendants, including their internationally recognised right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
Background
Mr Abdel Fattah was arrested on 28 November 2013 and charged with the offences of “participating in a demonstration”, “assaulting a police officer” and “calling for protests”. He was detained for 115 days before his first court hearing, presided by Judge Mohammed El-Fikki, when he was released on bail. On 17 May, the Court denied Abdel Fattah’s recusal request against Judge El-Fikki based on the animosity between the two men going back to a complaint that Mr Abdel Fattah had filed against the judge for alleged election fraud in 2005. Mr Abdel Fattah’s next hearing, which was scheduled to take place on 25 May, was once again postponed and rescheduled for 11 June 2014. To read EMHRN’s interim trial monitoring report on this case, click here.
Mr Abdel Fattah’s trial is held in a heavily fortified police compound situated in Tora, a few kilometres from the centre of Cairo. “The Special Chambers”, where the hearings are held, was set up to deal with “terrorist offenses”. These chambers are now used to try cases concerning offenses under the Protest Law.
Egypt’s controversial Protest Law severely restricts the right to peaceful assembly in violation of international standards. Since its adoption, the law has unleashed a wave of politically-motivated judicial procedures against dissenting voices, allowing for collective responsibility and disproportionate punishment.