Aadel Collection
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy, submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/43
UNITED
NATIONS E
Economic and Social
Distr.
ouncu GENERAL
EICN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
4 March 2004
ENGUSH/FRENCH/SPANTSH
COMMTSSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Sixtieth session
Item 11 of the provisional agenda
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGhTS, INCLUJ)ING TILE QUESTIONS OF:
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY, ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, IMPUNITY
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers,
Leandro Despouy, submitted in accordance with
Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/43
Addendum
Situations in specific countries or territories *
* The present document is being circulated in the languages of submission only as it greatly exceeds
the page limitations currently imposed by the relevant General Assembly resolutions
GE. 04-11506
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 2
Contents
Paragraphs Page
Introduction 1 - 5 3
Algeria 6 3
Argentina 7- 10 4
Belarus 11 5
Bolivia 12- 14 5
Brazil 15 6
China 16-19 6
Colombia 20 7
Cuba 21-22 8
Egypt 23-26 8
Guatemala 27-33 10
Haiti 34-35 11
Honduras 36-37 12
India 38 13
Indonesia 39 - 42 13
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 43 - 46 15
Israel 47- 50 17
Lebanon 51-52 18
Liberia 53 18
Malawi 54 18
Mauritania 55- 56 19
Mexico 57-65 19
Nicaragua 66 22
Saudi Arabia 67 - 69 23
Serbia and Montenegro 70 - 71 23
Sri Lanka 72 - 74 24
Sudan 75 - 80 25
Swaziland 81 - 82 27
Syrian Arab Republic 83 - 86 27
Tajikistan 87 28
Tunisia 88 - 91 29
Turkey 92 - 94 30
Turkmenistan 95 - 98 31
Uganda 99 32
United States of America 100- 109 32
Uruguay 110-113 35
Uzbekistan 114-118 36
Venezuela 119 38
VietNam 120-121 38
Yemen 122-123 39
Zimbabwe 124-127 39
Palestinian Authority 128 41
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 3
Introduction
1. The present report contains summaries of the urgent appeals and communications
transmitted to governmental authorities between 1 January and 31 December 2003, as well as replies
received during the same period. In addition, the report contains summaries of the press releases
issued during the current reporting period. Due to restrictions on the length of the report, the Special
Rapporteur has been obliged to summarize the details of all correspondence sent and received. As a
result, requests from Governments to publish their replies in their totality could regrettably not be
accommodated.
2. The Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize that the urgent appeals and communications
reflected in the present report are based exclusively on information that has been transmitted to him
directly. Where information was insufficient, the Special Rapporteur was not in a position to act. He
also recognizes that problems concerning the independence and impartiality of the judiciary are not
confined to the countries and territories mentioned. In this regard, he wishes to emphasize that
readers of the present report should not interpret the omission of a particular country or territory as
indicating that the Special Rapporteur considers that there are no problems with the independence of
judges and lawyers in that country or territory.
3. The Special Rapporteur wishes to inform the Commission that during the period under
review a total of 70 urgent appeals, communications and press releases were transmitted to
39 countries or territories.
4. At the time of submitting the present report the Special Rapporteur has received responses
from the Governments of Bolivia, Lebanon, Mexico, Sudan and Turkey to urgent appeals or
communications sent during the reporting period but these replies were either not able to be
translated in time or were received after 31 December 2003, so they will be reflected in future
reports to the Commission.
5. The Special Rapporteur would like to point out that all communications, allegations and
press releases sent before 25 July 2003 were transmitted by his predecessor, Dato' Param
Cumaraswamy.
Algeria
Communication reçue
6. Dans une lettre envoyCe le 4 dCcembre 2002, le Gouvernement algérien a répondu a une
lettre envoyée le 12 septembre 2002 par le Rapporteur special, conjointement avec la Rapporteuse
spéciale sur les executions extrajudiciaires, sommaires ou arbitaires, concernant le cas de Ahmed
Ali Khelili (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1, para. 10). Selon les informations envoyées par le
gouvernement, M. Khelili n'aurait pas cm bon de saisir lajustice et porter a sa connaissance les faits
allégués, prévenant ainsi lajustice de procéder a une enquête et de verifier si les allegations étaient
fondées ou non. Le gouvernement souligna que, selon la legislation algérienne, une personne qui
s ‘estime être victime d'agissements contraires a la loi a la faculté de déposer une plainte, soit devant
le Procureur de la République, soit directement par la voie de plainte avec constitution de partie
civile, devant le Doyen des juges d'instruction, cc que Khelili n'aurait pas fait.
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 4
Argentina
Comunicación enviada
7. Mediante comunicaciôn del 24 dejulio de 2003, ci Relator Especial agradecio las respuestas
que ci Gobierno habia enviado en 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1, parr. 15), y soiicito las
informaciones concernientes al estado del proceso de acusaciôn contra nueve magistrados de la
Corte Suprema de Justicia.
Respuestas del Gobierno
8. El Gobierno contestô ala comunicaciôn del Relator Especial de fecha 24 dejulio de 2003 y
proporcionô la informacion siguiente: la existencia de graves denuncias respecto de la faita de
independencia e imparcialidad de la Corte Suprema de Justicia creô una gran desconfianza en la
ciudadania respecto de todo ci sistema de administracion dejusticia. Se mencionaba la faita de
legitimidad de la Corte ya que debido a su composiciôn existia una “mayoria automática” para
favorecer al gobierno de turno. Además, la designacion de los Jueces de la Corte estuvo viciada por
un visible elemento partidista y sin los antecedentes, la trayectoria püblica y ci prestigio necesario
para ocupar ci cargo. La situaciôn afecto en forma grave ci principio democrático de separaciôn de
poderes dci Estado, dado que los Jueces designados para impiementar ci aumento de los miembros
de la Corte tenian notorios vinculos con ci Poder Ejecutivo a cargo dci Gobierno. Frente a ello, hubo
numerosos pedidos de Juicios politicos contra los Jueces de la Corte en la Cámara de Diputados, los
que fracasaron al no contar con suficiente apoyo politico. Con la asunciôn dci Presidente Néstor
Kirchner ci 25 de mayo de 2003 se reactivaron los pedidos de Juicio politico contra miembros de la
Corte; asi la Cámara de Diputados iniciô ci Juicio politico al Juez de la Corte Julio Nazareno, quien
renunciô a su cargo en Julio de 2003. Asimismo, la Cámara de Diputados aprobo la suspension en
sus fhnciones dci Juez de la Corte Eduardo Moliné O 'Connor en octubre de 2003.
9. Como una manera de impedir en ci fhturo la repeticiOn de actos como los mencionados en ci
párrafo anterior, que afectaron la credibilidad dci sistema de administraciOn deJusticia, ci Gobierno
nacional instaurado a partir dci 25 de mayo de 2003 ha estabiecido reformas en ci proceso de
designaciOn de los Jueces. En ci caso de los magistrados de la Corte Suprema, ci nuevo sistema
aprobado por Decreto Presidencial n° 222/03 hace referencia a la importancia de la creaciOn de
ciertos mecanismos que permitan a los ciudadanos, individual o colectivamente, a los colegios y a
las asociaciones que agrupan a sectores en ci ambito profesional, académico o cientifico de que se
trata, a las organizaciones no gubernamentaics con interés y acciones en ci tema, hacer conocer en
forma oportuna sus razones, sus puntos de vista y obJeciones que pudieran tener respecto dci
nombramiento a producir. El Senado de la naciOn también ha tomado medidas iniciales para
asegurar la transparencia en la aprobaciOn de las designaciones. Por Decreto Presidencial n° 588/03
se extendiO ci mismo sistema de evaluaciOn pübiica de la Corte para los candidatos a cargos de
Jueces, fiscaics o defensores pübhcos a nivel nacional y federal.
10. En 2003 ci Presidente dispuso la adhesiOn ala ConvenciOn sobre la Jmprescriptibiiidad de los
Crimenes de Guerra y de los Crimenes de Lesa Humanidad. Por otra parte, en agosto de 2003 ci
Congreso Nacional sancionO la Ley 25.779 por la que se deciaran “insanabiemente nulas” las icycs
denominadas de Obediencia Debida y Punto Final. Frente a estas medidas ci propio Alto
Comisionado adJunto sostuvo que “es alentador ver ci trabaJo que se está realizando para que la
Justicia se imponga a pesar de que aigunos hicieron lo posibie en ci pasado para evitarlo.
El Gobierno argentino ha demostrado voluntad para acabar con la impunidad...”.
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 5
Belarus
Communications received from the Government
11. On 30 January 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's communication
dated 27 November 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1, para. 24) and advised that in accordance with the
Minsk City Bar Association, the lawyer, Vera Stremkovskaya, was accorded leave without pay and
medical benefits, at her request, in order to attend the Council of Europe international conference on
lawyers' associations and human rights in Brussels in October 2002 and the Democratic Forum in
Seoul in November 2002. The Government fhrther advised that the Minsk City Bar Association
imposed no restrictions on Ms. Stremkovskaya's capacity to attend or speak at international
gatherings and she is currently performing her professional duties without restriction. The
Government also provided some statistical information about the increased activities of the Minsk
City Bar Association.
Bolivia
Comunicación enviada
12. El 2 de abril de 2003, el Relator Especial, junto con la Representante Especial del Secretario
General sobre la situaciôn de los defensores de los derechos humanos, la Relatora Especial sobre
ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias y el Relator Especial sobre la situaciôn de los
derechos humanos y las libertades fhndamentales de los indIgenas, enviô un llamamiento urgente en
relacion con la situaciôn de Cliver Rocha, responsable de la Unidad Regional del Centro de
Estudios JurIdicos e Jnvestigaciôn Social (CEJIS) en Riberalta y asesor de la Central IndIgena de la
Region AmazOnica de Bolivia (CIRABO), quien habrIa sido agredido el 13 de marzo de 2003 en las
puertas del juzgado agrario de Riberalta cuando se retiraba de una audiencia püblica. El abogado
Cliver Rocha habrIa sido perseguido a la salida del juzgado, golpeado en reiteradas oportunidades
en la parte posterior de la cabeza y amenazado de muerte.
13. El 7 de mayo de 2003, el Relator Especial, junto con la Representante Especial del
Secretario General sobre la situaciOn de los defensores de los derechos humanos, la Relatora
Especial sobre ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias y el Relator Especial sobre la
situaciOn de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indIgenas, enviaron un
llamamiento urgente en relaciOn con la situaciOn de Cliver Rocha, quien habrIa sido golpeado el
23 de abril de 2003 por dos individuos no identificados que lo habrIan seguido en una motocicleta
cuando saliO de su despacho. Mientras lo golpeaban, los agresores le habrIan repetido que
abandonara la zona.
Respuestas del Gobierno
14. Mediante comunicaciOn del 24 de septiembre de 2003, el Gobierno proporcionO informaciOn
en relaciOn con los llamamientos urgentes que el Relator Especial, junto con la Representante
Especial del Secretario General sobre la situaciOn de los defensores de los derechos humanos, la
Relatora Especial sobre ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias y el Relator Especial
sobre la situaciOn de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indIgenas, enviaron
el 2 de abril y el 7 de mayo de 2003 en relaciOn con las amenazas y agresiones contra el abogado
Cliver Rocha. Segün el Gobierno, de acuerdo con los informes de la policla provincial del Beni, una
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 6
vez recibida la denuncia se habrIa dado trasiado de su contenido a! ministerio pübiico. Asimismo
informo que extraflamente ci cuadernillo de la investigaciôn (denuncia, deciaracion y certificado
medico) no habrIa retornado a la policla provincial del Beni, razôn por la cual se habrIa hecho
necesario obtener nuevamente una deciaracion informativa policial con ci fin de dar trámite a la
investigaciôn. Para tal fin, se habrIa citado a! demandante para obtener una nueva deciaracion. Dicha
peticiôn no habrIa obtenido respuesta, hecho ante ci cual se habrIa procedido a! envIo de las
actuaciones a! ministerio pübiico, quien a su vez habrIa ampliado ci piazo de tCrmino de la
investigaciôn por 10 dIas, después de los cuales, pese ala insistencia del encargado del caso, Chver
Rocha no habrIa proporcionado informacion argumentando como motivo principal una reacciôn
negativa por parte de los indIgenas a quien Ci patrocina.
Brazil
Communications to the Government
15. On 17 April 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning two judges,
Judge Antonio José Machado Dias from Sao Paulo State, who was murdered on 14 March 2003,
and Judge Alexandre Martins de Castro Filho from Espirito Santo State, who was murdered on
25 March 2003. According to the information received, Judge Dias was responsible for trials
involving accused persons from the First Capital Commando, a criminal faction that operates within
the prisons of Sao Paulo State. Judge Castro Fiiho was involved in many cases against members of
organized crime in Espirito Santo. Both judges had received death threats in the past and,
unfortunately, only two days before his death, Judge Dias had apparently dismissed his bodyguards
as he felt his safety was no longer an issue.
China
Communications to the Government
16. On 9 January 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning two lawyers,
Sizhi Zhang and iluigen Li, Chinese nationals from Beijing, who were asked by Lob Tsering, the
brother of Tibetan Tenyin Delek Rinpoche (aka A'an Zhaxi), to defend Mr. Rinpoche, who received
the death sentence on 2 December 2002. (Mr. Rinpoche received a two- year reprieve of the
sentence following an appeal filed on 13 December 2002). According to the information received,
Mr. Zhang and Mr. Li were preparing to travel to Dhartsedo in Sichuan Province, where Mr.
Rinpoche was imprisoned, when on 29 December 2002 they were informed by Judge Jinghong
Wang of the Sichuan Provincial Court that their services were no longer required as two local
lawyers had already submitted documents on behalf of Mr. Rinpoche. It appears that Judge Wang
may have been pressured by Sichuan Provincial authorities to prevent the two Beijing lawyers from
representing Mr. Rinpoche. There was concern that the local lawyers may be pressured by the
Sichuan authorities, which would impede Mr. Rinpoche's right to an adequate defence and a fair
trial. A petition was filed in the Sichuan Provincial High Court to consider the issue of
Mr. Rinpoche's legal representation.
17. On 24 February 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning Wang
Bingzhang. According to the information received, on 22 January 2003 Mr. Wang's trial took place
in secret and on 10 February the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in Guangdong Province
found him guilty of various spying and terrorism charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 7
Reportedly, Mr. Wang was held incommunicado for months following his detention in July 2002
and was denied adequate legal representation.
Communications from the Government
18. On 29 April 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's communication dated
9 January 2003 and advised that during the trial of first and second instance, the defendant,
Mr. Rinpoche, secured and retained the legal services of Chen Shichang and Yu Jianbo.
Subsequently, members of Mr. Rinpoche's family engaged two different lawyers. However, since
the defendant had already exercised his right under 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to chose
his own counsel, the court of second instance was unable to authorize the lawyers appointed by the
family members. The Government stated that it was inaccurate to allege that the Sichuan Provincial
People's Court was pressured by the local government to disqualify the lawyers from Beijing
appointed by the defendant's family. The Government added that China was a State governed by the
rule of law and that the Chinese judicial system operated in accordance with the principles of
independence and impartiality.
19. On 29 April 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's communication dated
24 February 2003. The Government advised that on 10 January 2003 proceedings commenced
against Mr. Wang in the Schenzhen Intermediate People's Court, which decided to hear the case in
closed session as it dealt with State secrets (pursuant to article 152 of the Civil Suits Act).
According to the court of first instance, Mr. Wang engaged in espionage by collecting military
information, publishing books on how to conduct terrorist activities and actively engaging in the
recruitment and planning of terrorist acts. The Government advised that on 10 February 2003
Mr. Wang was sentenced to life imprisonment for espionage and to ten years' imprisonment for
organizing and heading a terrorist oranization. The People's Higher Court in Guangdong Province,
the court of second instance, ruled the evidence was credible and sufficient and the punishment
appropriate and consistent with the law. The appeal was rejected and the verdict upheld. The
Government advised that the proceedings in this case were in compliance with the law at every
stage, in particular articles 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China granting
China exclusive jurisdiction over this case. The Government further advised that Mr. Wang's legal
rights were fhlly respected during the investigation and prosecution stages; he had exercised his
right to appeal and was represented by counsel during the review stage, which was conducted in a
fair and unbiased manner.
Colombia
Comunicación enviada
20. El 18 de julio de 2003, el Relator Especial enviô un llamamiento urgente en relacion con la
situaciôn del abogado José Ramiro Orjuela Aguilar, quien vendria siendo objeto de constantes
intimidaciones y amenazas contra su vida y su integridad personal. D c acuerdo con las
informaciones recibidas, el 10 de febrero de 2003 la oficina de Ramiro Orjuela, habria sido objeto
de un allanamiento bajo la acusaciôn de pertenecer a la red urbana de las Fuerzas Armadas
Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC). Tales hechos guardarian relacion con el trabajo juridico que
el Sr. Orjuela Aguilar adelanta con detenidos politicos. Asimismo se informo de que el mismo dia
de su asesinato, el 11 de mayo de 2003, el abogado José Absalon Achury, amigo personal del Sr.
Orjuela Aguilar, le habria llamado con el fin de informarle sobre las intimidaciones de que habria
sido objeto y en las cuales se seflalaba que el abogado Ramiro Orjuela y él estaban en el “mismo
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 8
paquete para ser asesinados”. Tales intimidaciones guardarian relacion con la salida de la care d de
Ignacio Gonzalez Perdomo, defendido del abogado Achury. Igualmente se ha informado sobre las
averiguaciones que se habrian efectuado el dia 12 de mayo de 2003 en la antigua oficina del
Sr. Orjuela Aguilar por parte del Cuerpo Técnico Jnvestigativo de la Fiscalia (CTI) las cuales harlan
presumir la existencia de un proceso judicial contra José Ramiro Orjuela Aguilar.
Cuba
Comunicación enviada
21. El 19 de mayo de 2003, el Relator Especial, junto con el Relator Especial sobre la promociôn
y protecciôn del derecho a la libertad de opinion y de expresiOn y el Representante Especial del
Secretario General sobre la situaciOn de los defensores de los derechos humanos, enviO un
llamamiento urgente relativo a la situaciOn de 78 personas que habr lan sido arrestadas el
18 de marzo 2003 y habrian sido procesadas enjuicios sumarios a puerta cerrada. Estos juicios
habrian tenido lugar entre los dias 3 y 7 de abril 2003, bajo el marco de la Ley de protecciOn de la
independencia nacional y economia de Cuba y la Ley de reafirmaciOn de la dignidad y soberania
cubanas. Presuntamente, 75 de las personas detenidas habr lan recibido sentencias de 6 a 28 aflos de
prisiOn, mientras que otras 3 se encontrarian bajo arresto domiciliario.
Respuestas del Gobierno
22. Mediante comunicaciOn del 2 de septiembre de 2003, el Gobierno proporcionO informaciOn
en relaciOn con el llamamiento urgente que el Relator Especial habia enviado el 19 de mayo de 2003
en relaciOn con la situaciOn de los ciudadanos Ariel Singler Amaya, Enrique Perez Morell, Juan
Felipe de Ia Torre Requejo, Yoheni Junco Sardinas, Yoani Junco Sardinas, Justo Julio Sierra
Silva, RaW Arencibia Fajardo y Oscar Ellas Biscet Gonzalez. Segün el Gobierno, los ciudadanos
mencionados habr lan sido detenidos por violar la legislaciOn penal vigente, asimismo informO que a
los detenidos se les habria impuesto una multa administrativa y posteriormente habrian sido puestos
en libertad. El Gobierno también informO que durante la detenciOn, traslado y permanencia de en la
unidad de policia habrian sido respetados los requisitos del debido proceso y observado las normas
del procedimiento penal vigentes. Asimismo se informO de que el 7 de marzo de 2003, los detenidos
Orlando Zapata Tamayo, Virgilio Morantes Guelmes y Raül Arencibia Fajardo habrian sido
dejados en libertad provisional pendientes dejuicio. Por su parte, Elias Biscet Gonzalez habria
permanecido en prisiOn al haberse probado su responsabilidad por el delito de instigaciOn para
delinquir y otras tipificaciones delictivas directamente dirigidas a lesionar la soberania y el orden
constitucional.
Egypt
Communications to the Government
23. On 9 April 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and
the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences regarding the arrest
and detention of hundreds of anti-war demonstrators who attended anti-war rallies held across Cairo
between 20 and 25 March 2003. They were reportedly accused of various offences, including
participating in illegal gatherings and threatening public security. It is reported that the total number
and location of the detainees, many of whom have been held incommunicado, remain unknown.
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 9
Among those reported to be detained are activist Ms. Manal Ahmad Mustafa Khalid and lawyer
Ziad Abdel ilamid al-Uleimi, Ms. Nivin Ahmad Samir, two other lawyers, Mr. Gamal Abd at-
Aziz and Mr. Yassir Farrag, four members of Parliament, Mohammed Farid ilassanein,
llammdeen Sabahi, Abdet Azim at-Maghrabi and ilaidar Baghdadi and a number of students,
including Marwa Faruq, Samir Futi, Mahmud ‘Izzat, Shaymaa Samir and Nourhan Thabet.
While many of the hundreds of people initially detained have been released it is reported that at least
68 people have been served with detention orders of between 4 and 15 days and have reportedly
been tortured or ill-treated (electric shocks and beatings) in police custody, including gender-based
violence (threatened with rape) or have been subjected to excessive force upon detention by security
forces. Reportedly, at least seven civilian detainees were transferred to the State Security
Prosecution Office where due process is limited during the trial procedure and the right to appeal is
denied as under these exceptional procedures there is no avenue for appeal and a conviction can
only be overturned by order of the President of the Republic in his capacity as Military Governor
under Egypt's emergency laws.
24. On 10 April 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a comunication concerning Dr. Neesem
Abdet Matek, former director of the Cairo El-Khanka Mental Hospital, who was reportedly unjustly
sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment with hard labour by a military court. The prison sentence was
reduced from 25 to 10 years in January 2000 but the ongoing concern is that it was an arbitrary
sentence of imprisonment by a military tribunal under “state of emergency” regulations and
therefore without any right to appeal. Of general concern is the fact that in February 2003, the
Government of Egypt extended this “state of emergency” for a fhrther three years, which
automatically refers any civilian to a military court by presidential decision if the case falls under
the general category of “acts of terrorism”.
25. On 2 October 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and
the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders
regarding Ashraflbrahim, an active member of the anti-war movement in Egypt. According to the
information received, Mr. Ibrahim's case was referred to the Higher Emergency State Security Court
on 10 August 2003 on charges of belonging to an organization seeking to overthrow the
Government and of disseminating false information abroad (articles 80(d) and 86 respectively of the
Penal Code). His trial, along with that of other co-defendants, was scheduled to begin on
16 December 2003. Of particular concern is that the Higher Emergency State Security Court, a
tribunal established under the emergency law, allows no appeals to a higherjudicial body and, as a
result, a verdict can only be overturned or modified by the President of the Republic.
Communications from the Government
26. On 22 April 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteurs'joint urgent appeal of
9 April 2003. The Government stated that it was not true that thousands of citizens were prevented
from demonstrating against the war in Iraq. The only people arrested were those who breached
public security and public order, for example those who destroyed public or private property. Those
persons were questioned by the Department of Public Prosecutions and released once the
investigation was complete. The Government further claimed that no one is currently being held in
detention in connection with the demonstrations against the war in I raq.
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 10
Guatemala
Comunicación enviada
27. El 16 de abril de 2003, ci Relator Especial enviO un ilamamiento urgente en reiaciOn con ci
atentado contra Manuel de Jesus BarquIn Durán. Dc acuerdo con las informaciones recibidas, ci
10 de abril de 2003, Manuel de Jesus BarquIn habrIa detenido su camioneta en una estaciOn de
servicio de Santa Cruz, departamento de Zacapa, a unos 125 kiiOmetros de Guatemala, cuando un
grupo de hombres no identificados habrIa disparado contra ci automOvii. Segün informes, los
hombres habrIan disparado varias veces con sus rifles AK-47 desde otro vehIculo y a continuaciOn
habrIan abandonado ci lugar. Manuel de Jesus BarquIn Durán habrIa salido de la camioneta varios
minutos antes dci atentado, pero su guardaespaidas, José A lfredo Gonzalez Méndez, que todavIa se
encontraba en ci interior dci vehIculo, habrIa resuitado gravemente herido. La camioneta habrIa
recibido 37 impactos de bala. Manuel de Jesus BarquIn Durán afirmarla que durante las dos semanas
anteriores a este incidente habrIa recibido reiteradas amenazas de muerte.
28. El 1 °de Julio de 2003, ci Relator Especial, Junto con la Representante Especial dci Secretario
General sobre la situaciOn de los defensores de los derechos humanos, enviO un ilamamiento
urgente relativo a las amenazas de muerte y actos de hostigamiento contra Thelma de Lam, fiscal
especial para los defensores de los derechos humanos, y Marines MartInez, fiscal auxiliar para los
defensores de los derechos humanos. Segün las informaciones, ci 20 de Junio de 2003, tres hombres
armados habrIan entrado en la casa de Marines MartInez, exigiendo veria. Una de las empicadas ics
habria dicho que no se encontraba en casa, ante lo cual la habrian encargado de decirie que <>, y ci segundo que <
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 11
a pesar de contar con un servicio de seguridad personal privado, habrIa aceptado la seguridad
perimetral ofrecida en los alrededores de su residencia en la capital y en la residencia de su familia
en el municipio de San Benito, departamento de El PetCn.
31. Mediante comunicaciOn del 10 de diciembre de 2003, el Gobierno de Guatemala
proporcionO informaciOn en relaciOn con el llamamiento urgente que el Relator Especial, Junto con
la Representante Especial del Secretario General sobre la situaciOn de los defensores de los derechos
humanos, habla enviado el 1 °de Julio de 2003 en relaciOn con las amenazas de muerte y actos de
hostigamiento contra Thelma de Lam, fiscal especial para los defensores de los derechos humanos, y
Marines MartInez, fiscal auxiliar para los defensores de los derechos humanos. Segün el Gobierno,
la Fiscalia especial de delitos cometidos contra miembros o integrantes de los grupos pro derechos
humanos habrIa iniciado la investigaciOn y persecuciOn penal correspondiente.
Comunicado de prensa
32. El 8 del Julio de 2003, por comunicado de prensa, el Relator Especial ha mostrado su
preocupaciOn por los problemas presupuestarios del Jnstituto para la Defensa Püblica Criminal de
Guatemala. El Relator Especial fue informado recientemente de que la Coordinadora Nacional para
la ModernizaciOn del Sistema de Justicia de Guatemala tiene problemas en unos de los sectores bajo
su responsabilidad, el Instituto para la Defensa Püblica Criminal. La continuidad del Jnstituto es
cuestionada debido a la falta de recursos. A consecuencia de ello, el Jnstituto ha advertido de que no
podra implementar o continuar algunos de los programas como el de la oficina de la defensa, oficina
del fiscal, el centro de administraciOn de lajusticia, los centros de ayuda legal de las estaciones de
policia y los servicios de ayuda legal usados fundamentalmente por la poblaciOn indigena. En el aflo
2002, la Corte Suprema de Justicia puso de relieve las dificultades en el eJercicio de sus funciones
debido a las reducciones de presupuesto. El Relator Especial comparte las preocupaciones
expresadas por ambas instituciones. La inadecuada financiaciOn del importante Instituto para la
Defensa Püblica Criminal perJudicaria seriamente el acceso de los ciudadanos a laJusticia y pondria
en peligro el imperio de la ley en Guatemala. El Relator Especial urge al Congreso de la Repüblica y
al Ministerio de Hacienda a dar el debido tratamiento ala falta de recursos dedicados a laJudicatura
en general y a actuar urgentemente par aumentar el presupuesto del Instituto par la Defensa Püblica
Criminal af ln de que pueda continuar trabaJando y sirviendo a los ciudadanos.
33. El 17 del Julio de 2003, por comunicado de prensa, el Relator Especial expresO su profunda
preocupaciOn sobre la independencia, imparcialidad e integridad de laJusticia tras la decision de la
Corte de Constitucionalidad de validar la candidatura del General Efrain Rios Montt. No solo la
decision fue tomada a pesar deJuzgamientos previos de inhabilitaciOn por parte de la Corte Suprema
de Justicia y del Tribunal Supremo Electoral fhndados sobre el articulo 186 de la ConstituciOn, sino
que dicha Corte utilizO el mismo precepto constitucional par vedar anteriormente la candidatura del
general en 1995. Ademas, esta ültima decision va en contra de la recomendaciOn concreta del
Relator Especial que figura en su informe sobre la misiOn cumplida en Guatemala en agosto de
1999(E/CN.4/2000/61/Add.1, parr. 169 hi)).
ilaiti
Communications envoyées
34. Le 14 février 2003, le Rapporteur special, conJointement avec la Rapporteuse spéciale sur les
executions extraJudiciaires, sommaires ou arbitraires, a envoyé un appel urgent au Gouvernement
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 12
haltien relatif a la situation de Pierre Josiard Agnant, juge d'instruction et président de
i'Association nationale des magistrats haltiens. Scion i'information reçue, Pierre Josiard Agnant
aurait été arrêté au scm même du Ministére de iajustice ic 10 février 2003, sur ordre du Ministre de
iajustice, Cahxte Deiatour, qui iui reprocherait d'avoir << hbéré trop vite Sahm Barthrony >>, un
individu accuse d'être imphque dans un trafic iilicite de stupefiants, aiors que i'accusation n'aurait
sembie-t-ii pas pu fournir de preuves suffisantes pouvant conduire a une condamnation de cc
dernier. Ii a par aiiieurs ete rapporté que ic juge Agnant aurait ete immediatement mis en
indisponibihte et piace en residence surveilliee. Deux voitures flanquees de sept agents de pohce
iourdement armés monteraient ia garde devant son domiciie de Santo, situation qui porte a craindre
pour ia vie du magistrat et de sa famiiie.
Communications reçues
35. Le 23 octobre 2003, ic gouvernement a envoyé une iettre accusant reception de ia
communication du Rapporter speciai en date du 14 fevrier, mais a cc jour, date de redaction du
present rapport, aucune réponse substantive na ete reçue.
ilonduras
Comunicación enviada
36. F l 8 de octubre de 2003, ci Reiator Especiai, junto con ia Reiatora Especiai sobre
ejecuciones extrajudiciaies, sumarias o arbitrarias, ci Reiator Especiai sobre ia cuestiôn de ia tortura,
ia Representante Especiai dci Secretario Generai sobre ia situaciôn de ios defensores de ios derechos
humanos y ci Reiator Especiai sobre ia situaciôn de ios derechos humanos y ias iibertades
fundamentaics de ios indigenas, enviô un iiamamiento urgente en reiacion con ia situaciôn de
peiigro en ia que se encontrarian Marcelino Miranda, Leonardo Miranda y Marcelino Martinez
Espinal. Segün ias informaciones, ci 22 dejuiio de 2003 personas no identificadas habrian iievado a
cabo averiguaciones sobre ci abogado Marceiino Martinez que inciuirian detaiies sobre su vehicuio.
También se informo de que ios mismos individuos habrian reaiizado comentarios despectivos en
reiacion con ci abogado. Asimismo se informo de que ci 18 de septiembre de 2003 un vehicuio
Toyota rojo con ios cristaics tintados y sin piacas de matricuia habria seguido ci automovii de
Marceiino Martinez cuando se dirigia a efectuar una visita a dos dirigentes indigenas detenidos en ia
prisiôn de Gracias. Finaimente, se informo de que estos actos de intimidacion afectarian a ia iabor
de Marceiino Martinez, quien habria manifestado que por razones de seguridad personai no se
sentiria capaz de continuar con sus visitas a ios dirigentes indigenas detenidos.
Respuestas del Gobierno
37. Mediante comunicaciôn dci 19 de diciembre de 2003, ci Gobierno informo a ia
Representante Especiai dci Secretario Generai sobre ia situaciôn de ios defensores de ios derechos
humanos respecto ai iiamamiento urgente enviado ci 8 de octubre sobre ci caso de Marceiino
Miranda y Leonardo Miranda y dci abogado Marceiino Martinez Espinai. H Gobierno estabiecio
que varias investigaciones acerca de ias denuncias habian sido iniciadas. Con respecto a ios deiitos
cometidos contra ios hermanos Leonardo y Marceiino Miranda, ci Gobierno informo que
requerimiento fiscai fue presentado ante ci juzgado de primera instancia de Letras Departamentai de
Gracias contra 28 personas por suponeries responsabies de cometer deiitos de abuso de autoridad,
torturas, iesiones y daflo en perjuicio de Marceiino Miranda, Leonardo Miranda y ia comunidad
indigena de Pianes de Montafla Verde. Hizo saber que en ia audiencia iniciai que se ceiebro ci
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 13
23 de septiembre, eijuez ordeno ci sobreseimiento definitivo a favor de los imputados. Con fecha
de 29 de septiembre la Fiscaila interpuso recurso de reposiciôn y subsidiaria apeiacion ante la Corte
de Apelaciones de Santa Rosa de Copán y ci 29 de octubre la misma Corte reformo ci
sobreseimiento definitivo dictado por ci juzgado de primera instancia y ordeno que ci mismo se
decrete de manera provisional. Con respecto a las acusaciones contra Marcelino Miranda y
Leonardo Miranda, ci Gobierno hizo saber que prôximamente se dictara sentencia por cargos de
tentativa de homicidio y asesinato, y con respecto al cargo de lesiones y atentado, se dicto sentencia
absolutoria a la que ci ministerio pübiico luego interpuso recurso de Casaciôn ante la Corte Suprema
de Justicia, que aün está pendiente de sentencia. Respecto a las amenazas contra ci abogado Jose
Leonardo Miranda Espinoza, ci Gobierno informo de que una denuncia the interpuesta ci
16 de octubre ante la Direcciôn General de Jnvestigaciôn Criminal de Gracias Lampira y un
requerimiento de investigaciôn habla sido emitido ci 28 de octubre a la Direcciôn General de
Jnvestigaciôn Criminal. La investigaciôn sigue en curso.
India
Communications to the Government
38. On 24 July 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on torture regarding Ayub Khan Pathan, Abdul Latif Pathan, Shamshad Begum A
Pathan and Mehzabin Ayub Khan Pathan. Mr. Ayub Khan Pathan was reportedly arrested on
15 June 2003 and Mr. Abdul LatifPathan on 25 June 2003 by crime branch police officers of the
Gujarat police. According to the information received, the wives of two of the detainees filed a
habeas corpus petition in the Gujarat High Court on 7 July 2003, but were subjected to pressure by
the superintendent of police to make them to withdraw it, and their husbands were threatened with
death. On 11 July 2003, the women reportedly filed a complaint with the High Court which claimed
that their husbands had been detained without due legal safeguards and that they had been subjected
to torture and other forms of ill-treatment. It is said that at the hearing, the crime branch denied that
they were in their custody. The High Court reportedly dismissed the habeas corpus petition and
Ayub Khan Pathan and Abdul Latif Pathan were allegedly remanded to police custody. They are
believed to be currently held in police detention without access to their lawyers and their relatives
since 9 July 2003.
Indonesia
Communications to the Government
39. On 10 April 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and
the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture regarding Susyanti, An'am Jaya, Sahabuddin,
Ansar Suherman, llariansyah and Muhammad Akman, who were reportedly arrested on
25 January 2003 in Sulawesi Tenggara Province. The six activists were reportedly charged under
articles of the Indonesian Criminal Code which punish “insulting the President and Vice-President”
(article 134) and “hate-sowing” (articles 154 and 155) with imprisonment for up to six and seven
years respectively. It is alleged that two days before their arrest they had participated in a peaceful
demonstration organized by a coalition of Indonesian organizations known as the Governing Front
of the Poor (Front Pemerintah Rakyativi/skin, FPRLvI) in Kendari Town, Kendari Sub-district.
According to the information received, they were initially detained at Kendari Police Resort (Poires
Kendari), where they are believed to have been beaten and kicked. According to the information
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 14
received, complaints from the lawyers of the accused about being ill-treated resulted in one police
officer being transferred. The six detainees were reportedly moved on 19 March 2003 to Kendari
Prison (Rumah Tahanan Kendari) where they are also said to have been beaten.
40. On 25 June 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Representative of the Secretary General on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture regarding Nuraini, Volunteer Coordinator of the Commission
for Involuntary Disappearances and Victims of Violence in Aceh (Kontras), Zakaria Ismail, and
Zulkifli, who were reportedly arrested on 19 June 2003 in Lueng Dama Village, Pidie District, by
members of the military from Delima Sub-district Military Command and police officers from
Delima Police Sector (Polsek Delima), including members of the Police Mobile Brigade (Brimob).
At the time of their arrest, Nuraini and Ismail were allegedly blindfolded and beaten and their house
searched. Both are believed to have been subsequently taken to Polsek Delima. Zulkifli is alleged to
have been detained at the same time. According to the information received, Mr. Ismail has been
accused by the military commander of Pidie District of being a former member of the armed group
Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and Zulkifli of being a fhnd-raiser for GAM. Concern has been
expressed that since the declaration of a military emergency on 19 May 2003, members of Kontras
and other human rights organizations have been directly warned by the local military commander
that they will be targeted for arrest. These three individuals are thought to be currently detained in
Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province (NAD), where they have allegedly been denied access to their
relatives and lawyers.
41. On 9 July 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the
question of torture and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
regarding GustafAyomi, John ililipok, Welmus Asso and Elias Asso, who were reportedly
arrested by the police on 7 July 2003 during a pro-independence ceremony in the town of Wamena,
Jayawijaya District, Papua Province. They had been participating in the demonstration outside the
local Parliament building at which the Morning Star flag, a symbol of support for Papuan
independence, was raised. A police patrol arrived and tried to break up the ceremony. According to
the police, they opened fire after the demonstrators attacked them. It is alleged that during this
intervention, Iyut ileselo was killed. Welmus Asso and Elias Asso were reportedly shot at and then
taken to the local hospital. According to the information received, Gustaf Ayomi and John Hilipok
were taken to the Wamena Police Resort (Polres). It is reported that they had no access to lawyers.
Communications from the Government
42. On 7 August 2003, the Government sent a detailed reply to the Special Rapporteurs' joint
urgent appeal of 9 July 2003 about the “pro-independence ceremony” in Wamena, Province of
Papua. According to the Government's response, on 7 July 2003, Jayawijaya police were informed
that a number of people gathered inside the compound of the regency's legislative council and were
allegedly attempting to hoist separatist flags. It was reported that two police units were dispatched to
the area where they interrupted a ceremony involving several men armed with traditional weapons,
who were raising three New Melanesian flags to mark what they called the “New Melanesian”
anniversary. The Government indicated that a number of other individuals were posted as lookouts
and were gathered approximately 500 metres away from the flagpoles. The Government submitted
that efforts by the police to persuade the demonstrators to disperse failed and that the crowd
gathered around the flagpoles in a show of defiance. The police report affirmed that several
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 15
policemen approached the group in order to persuade them to lower their flags peacefully. The
Government further indicated that, after negotiating with the men identified as Welmus Asso,
Gustaf Ayomi, ilery Asso, Jean ilesegen and Yut ileselo for about an hour, the latter became
increasingly aggressive and eventually attacked their interlocutors using arrows and machetes, and
forcing the police to fire three warning shots. The Government of Indonesia also indicated that Yut
Heselo was fatally wounded, while Hery and Welmus Asso were injured and evacuated to a hospital
in Wamena for treatment. According to the Government's response, the Papuan police did not arrest
Elias Asso and John Hilipok since, according to police records, the five men taken into custody in
the wake of the incident were Hery and Welmus Asso, GustafAyomi, Jean Hesegen and Mayus
Togostli, all from Wamena. They were reportedly questioned by the police regarding their
involvement in the case and subsequently charged with violating articles 106 and 110 (offences
against the State), as well as article 212 (attacking the security forces) of the Penal Code, and Law
12/195 1 (possession of firearms and sharp weapons). The Government submitted that the detainees
were not held incommunicado and that they were accompanied by a lawyer throughout the
investigation process. The Government further indicated that on its behalf, the Coordinator Minister
for Political and Security Affairs, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, ordered a thorough investigation in
order to shed light on the incident. In this respect, the separatists in custody allegedly informed
investigators that the flags were raised following an order issued by Matias Wenda, a leader of the
rebel Free Papua Movement (OPM), reportedly in an attempt to foster dissent and incite people to
violence. The Government of Indonesia underlined that, while accepting the right of the people to
protest peacefully and to voice dissent, it cannot tolerate armed resistance, especially when directed
against government officials and employees. Therefore, it ordered the security forces to act firmly
against anyone breaking the law. It was reported that the Government of Papua repeatedly made it
clear that secessionist activities such as flag-raising ceremonies would not be tolerated and that any
offender would be dealt with firmly by the police, in accordance with the law. Finally, the
Government submitted that police intervention is fully justified in such cases and that the
Jayawijaya Police acted according to proper procedures in this case.
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Communications to the Government
43. On 24 January 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a futher urgent appeal regarding lawyers of
the Bar of Tehran, Mohammed- Ali Dadkah and Abdolfateh Soltani (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1,
paras. 75, 77 and 78) who were imprisoned as a result of their defence work on behalf of political
prisoners. The lawyers stated publicly that their clients had been tortured while in custody to extract
confessions from them. According to the information received, on 20 May 2002, Mr. Dadkah was
sentenced to imprisonment for five months and banned from practising law for 10 years. The trial
took place behind closed doors, giving rise to fears that Mr. Dadkah did not receive a fair trial. In
December 2002, the sentence was upheld by a court of appeals. The charge was based on a speech
which Mr. Dadkah had made in court in November 2001, in defence of various political prisoners
and journalists from the banned Freedom of Movement of fran who were arrested during two
round-ups in March and April 2001. Mr. Dadkah had been expelled by the President of the
Revolutionary Tribunal in the course of his defence speech and was therefore unable to carry out
the defence of his clients for the rest of the trial. The other lawyer, Mr. Soltani, who defended
15 members of a dissident religious nationalist group charged with trying to overthrow Iran 's
Islamic system, turned himself in on 21 January to begin a four-month prison sentence he received
on 9 July 2002. He has also been banned from practising law for five years. The main charge
against Mr. Soltani is that he claimed in his defence speeches that his clients had suffered from ill-
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 16
treatment while being interrogated. Both lawyers have appealed the rulings and the appeals are
pending.
44. On 12 March 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture regarding Abbas Abdi. It is reported that he was held in
incommunicado detention for an indeterminate amount of time. It was reported that Mr. Abdi's
lawyer prepared an appeal against the eight-year prison sentence handed down in January 2003.
However, he was not permitted to be present at the interrogation of his client and was not provided
with transcripts afterwards. In addition, an interrogator was allegedly present at their last meeting
despite repeated assertions by the lawyer that it should take place in private. Mr. Abdi's lawyer has
not been permitted access to his client and no information concerning the condition of Mr. Abdi has
been made available by the prison authorities.
45. On 29 September 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapprorteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Chairperson-Rapporteaur of the Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention, regarding Mehdi Said Asgari, Maziyar Aslani and A u Khaleqi.
According to information received, the first two were reportedly arrested on 9 August 2003 in their
homes in Tehran by members of the Revolutionary Guard. Ali Khaleqi was reportedly arrested by
members of the Revolutionary Guard on 1 September 2003. It is believed that their arrest was
connected with their membership of the banned opposition group, Hezb-e Mellat-e Iran (Iran Nation
Party). It is believed that Mehdi Said Asgari and Maziyar Aslani may be detained at Tehran's Evin
Prison, but their whereabouts have not been confirmed. It is fhrther reported that they have been
denied access to their family and to legal representation. Ali Khaleqi's place of detention is
reportedly not known. Furthermore, it is alleged that all three men have been tortured while in
custody.
46. On 5 December 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapprorteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and
the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders
concerning Mr. Nasser Zarafchan, a lawyer of the Bar of Tehran. According to the information
received, on 18 March 2002, Mr. Zarafchan was reportedly sentenced to three years in jail by the
Military Tribunal of Tehran for “being in possession of weapons and alcohol” and to two years in
prison for his statements to the press regarding the lawsuit of the alleged murders of intellectuals,
which ended in January 2002. Following an appeal this decision was reportedly upheld by the
Military Court of Tehran on 15 July 2002, and on 25 November 2003, Mr. Nasser Zarafchan's appeal
to the Supreme Court was dismissed, thereby confirming his five-year prison sentence. It has been
alleged that the case against him was fabricated by the police and that his sentence reportedly aimed
at sanctioning his activity as a lawyer for the families of the intellectuals murdered by intelligence
services agents in 1998. Reports indicate that Mt Zarafchan is being detained at Evin Prison, and
that he was not allowed to meet his lawyer, Mrs. Chirin Ebadi, during the process. There was
concern that Nasser Zarafchan may have been targeted in retaliation for his work as a lawyer and a
human rights defender.
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 17
Israel
Communications to the Government
47. On 28 February 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on
the situation of human rights defenders regarding Mr. Daoud Dirawi, who was reportedly detained
on the evening of 21 February 2003 in Jerusalem. According to the information receieved,
Mr. Dirawi was taken by Israeli soldiers to Qeshle Police Station in Jerusalem. Fatmi Dirawi, his
wife, was reportedly told by officers at the police station that her husband would be held for
24 hours and then brought before a judge. The following morning, she was reportedly told that her
husband had been taken away by personnel from Shin Bet (the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service),
that he would be detained for interrogation purposes for 12 days, that his place of detention would
not be revealed and that he would not be able to meet with a lawyer during this period.
48. On 24 July 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint communication with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture regarding the detention of several individuals who are being
held at the Russian Compound Detention Center (RCDC) in Jerusalem. According to the
information rceived between 9 and 11 June 2003, Yasser A u Abu Dia, Bassam Sharawi and Yunes
Abu-Sneineh were reportedly arrested and held in incommunicado detention. It is reported that
after their arrest they were held at a number of locations, first in the Etzion Camp, then transferred
to the General Security Services (GSS) Interrogation Unit at RCDC. It is alleged that during that
period they did not have access to a lawyer as an Order Prohibiting Meeting with Counsel had been
in place and that a petition to the High Court of Justice for its removal had been rejected on 22 June
2003.
Communications from the Government
49. On 30 July 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteurs' joint urgent appeal of
19 November 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1 para. 85). The Government advised that Dr. Diab was
arrested on suspicion of invovlement in terrorist activities against the State. As Dr. Diab is an
American citizen, the United States authorities were notified immediately upon his arrest and
detention. Upon examination of his case by the relevant Israeli authorities, Dr. Diab was released on
26 November 2002 and he left the country.
50. On 21 October 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteurs' joint urgent appeal
of 7 May 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1, para. 83). The Government stated that the three detainees
are members of a terrorist cell and were arrested on 30 April 2003 and indicted by the Jerusalem
District Court for their involvement in placing a cart of explosives in east Jerusalem on 29 April
2002. The detainees' meeting with their legal counsel was lawfully postponed in accordance with
Israeli law (by order of the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice) on the basis that the
meeting would impede efforts to find additional explosive devices and capture other members of
the cell. According to the Government, since the expiration of the order postponing the meeting, the
detainees have been free to confer with their lawyers.
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 18
Lebanon
Communications from the Government
51. On 10 February 2003 the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's urgent appeal of
27 December 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1, para. 96) regarding the attempted murder of Judge
Fadi Nashar and advised that according to the investigation conducted by the judicial authorities the
attempted murder of Judge Nashar was an isolated incident with no political or judicial
implications. This incident has been referred to a public hearing at which the defendant has been
afforded all means of defence and freedom of speech.
52. On 9 September 2003 the Government sent additional information to the Special Rapporteur
concerning Judge Fadi Nashar (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1, para. 96) in handwritten Arabic but it could
not be translated for technical reasons. On 26 December 2003 the Government sent a typed copy of
the court decision but unfortunately the decision could not be translated in time for this report but
will be summarized in next year's report to the Commission.
Liberia
Communications to the Government
53. On 29 April 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Representative of the Secretary-
General on the situation of human rights defenders concerning Sheikh K.M. Sackor, the Executive
Director of Humanist Watch, a non-governmental human rights organization, who was reportedly
arrested on 25 July 2002 in Monrovia. According to the information received, on 23 October 2002,
the Minister of National Defence announced that a military tribunal had convened and had
concluded that he was a prisoner of war. It is reported that the consideration of his case by a
military court was held in camera and in the absence of the accused and that no evidence was
produced against him or tested before a competent, independent and impartial court. Fears have
been expressed that the categorization of Sheikh KM. Sackor as a prisoner of war has no legal
foundation and that he is being kept in detention because of his alleged criticism of the Government
and his activities in defence of human rights. It is further alleged that despite the announcement
made by the Government on 28 October 2002 that he would be released under certain conditions,
Sheikh K.M. Sackor is reportedly still held in incommunicado detention in an unknown place.
Matawi
Communications to the Government
54. On 26 June 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Chairman-
Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention regarding Fahad at Bahti, a Saudi
national; Ibrahim ilabaci, a a Turkish citizen, ArifUtasam, also a Turkish citizen; Mahmud
Sardar Issa, a Sudanese nationat and Khatifa Abdi ilassan, a Kenyan national, who were
reportedly arrested on 21 June 2003 in Blantyre in ajoint operation by Malawi's National
Intelligence Bureau and the United States Central Intelligence Agency. These five persons were all
legal residents of Malawi and engaged in businesses and teaching at Islamic schools. It is alleged
that they have not been charged with any offence, that their defence lawyers have been denied
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 19
access to them, and that they are being held in incommunicado detention in an unknown place. It
has also been alleged that on 24 June 2003, the authorithies failed to bring them before the Blantyre
High Court, in spite of an express order from a High Court judge.
Mauritania
Communication envoyée
55. Le 18 juillet 2003, le Rapporteur special, conjointement avec la Representante speciale du
Secretaire general concernant la situation des defenseurs des droits de l'homme et le Rapporteur
special sur la promotion et la protection du droit a la liberte d'opinion et d'expression, ont envoyc
un appel urgent sur la suspension presumee pour trois ans du batonnier Mahfoudh Ould Bettah par
. .
le Conseil de 1 Ordre de Mauritanie, le 7 juillet 2003. Le 27 juin 2002 a Nouakchott, M Bettah,
batonnier depuis plus de 12 ans, connu pour son action en faveur des droits de l'homme, aurait etc
reelu batonnier de l'Ordre national des avocats de Mauritanie a la majorite absolue. Ce scrutin aurait
etc invalide, en violation du Code de procedure penal mauritanien, et un second tour aurait etc
organise par les autorites. Des pressions auraient etc exercees sur les avocats, et les partisans de
Me Bettah auraient prefere ne pas prendre part au vote, contestant les irregularites de la procedure.
Le 16 decembre 2002, un batonnier proche du pouvoir aurait etc officiellement reconnu par le
Parquet general. Le 24 avril 2003, le Conseil de l'Ordre aurait cite a comparaitre Me Bettah, aux
motifs qu'il se considererait batonnier en violation des resultats des elections du second tour dejuin
2002. Cependant, l'audience du Conseil de discipline prevue pour le 12 mai 2003 pour la radiation
de Me Bettah ne se serait pas tenue et depuis, il n'aurait reçu aucune nouvelle citation. Sa suspension
serait intervenue le 7juillet 2003, sans convocation ni comparution. Des craintes ont etc exprimees
que cette suspension, qui intervient peu de temps avant l'ouverture dune serie de procès a l'encontre
d'opposants politiques, ne constitue une tentative de restreindre l'independance du barreau.
Communication reçue
56. Le 28 aoüt 2003, pour faire suite a la correspondance du Rapporteur special en date du
18 juillet 2003, le Gouvernement mauritanien renvoie aux faits deja enonces dans sa premiere
reponse du 18 novembre 2002. Il rappelle qu'aucun recours n'a etc introduit aprCs la notification du
procès-verbal des elections au poste de batonnier de l'Ordre national des avocats a tous les
candidats, Me Mahfoudh Ould Bettah compris. Les nouvelles instances de l'Ordre n'ont pris leurs
fonctions qu'a expiration de ces delais de recours. Suite aux manquements repetes de l'interesse et a
son attitude intransigeante durant la tentative de mediation conduite par deux anciens batonniers, le
Conseil a du prendre des mesures disciplinaires a l'encontre de l'interesse. Le gouvernement n'a a
aucun moment interfere dans cette affaire, et rappelle son attachement a la notion de l'Etat de droit.
Mexico
Comunicación enviada
57. El 14 de febrero de 2003 el Relator Especial, junto con la Relatora Especial sobre
ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias, el Relator Especial sobre la cuestiôn de la
tortura y la Representante especial del Secretario General sobre la situaciôn de los defensores de los
derechos humanos, enviô un llamamiento urgente en relacion con la situaciôn de inseguridad en la
que se encontrarlan Blanca Guadalupe Lopez, el detenido Victor Javier Garcia y su esposa,
Miriam Garcia, quienes habrIan sido vIctimas de una serie de amenazas y actos de intimidacion. El
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 20
9 de noviembre de 2001 Victor Javier Garcia y Gustavo Gonzalez Meza, esposo de Blanca
Guadalupe, habrian sido detenidos por un grupo de personas no identificadas en Ciudad Juárez,
Estado de Chihuahua. Segün informes, habrian sido torturados hasta que confesaron el asesinato de
ocho mujeres Jovenes en Ciudad Juárez. Mario Escobedo Anaya, abogado de Gustavo Gonzalez
Meza, habria muerto por disparos a manos de la policia Judicial del Estado. Segün informes
oficiales, la policia habria actuado en defensa propia porque el abogado habria disparado primero.
Segün informes, esta version se contradice con la de testigos, quienes afirmarian que Mario
Escobedo Anaya no habria disparado a la policia. Dichos acontecimientos se han producido a pesar
de que la ComisiOn Jnteramericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) dictO medidas de protecciOn para
Miriam Garcia, Blanca Guadalupe y el abogado Sergio Dante en septiembre de 2002.
58. El 6 de marzo de 2003, el Relator Especial, Junto con la Representante Especial del
Secretario General sobre la situaciOn de los defensores de los derechos humanos y el Relator
Especial sobre la cuestiOn de la tortura, enviO un llamamiento urgente respecto a la situaciOn de
Samuel Alfonso Castellanos y Beatriz Casas Arellanas, abogados de la organizaciOn AcciOn de
los Cristianos para la AboliciOn de la Tortura (ACAT), en Oaxaca, Carlos Cruz Mozo e Inocencio
Lopez Michel, miembros de la OrganizaciOn Jndigena de Derechos Humanos de Oaxaca (OIDHO),
quienes habrian sido obJeto de amenazas de muerte mediante una carta encontrada el 1 .°de marzo de
2003 en la oficina de ACAT-Oaxaca. El mismo dia, tres desconocidos armados habrian seguido al
Sr. Castellanos. Estas amenazas e intimidaciones habrian sido el obJeto de una denuncia ante la
Procuraduria General de Justicia del Estado (PGJE) y la ComisiOn Estatal de Derechos Humanos.
59. El 23 de abril de 2003, el Relator Especial, Junto con la Representante Especial del Secretario
General sobre la situaciOn de los defensores de los derechos humanos, el Relator Especial sobre la
situaciOn de los derechos humanos y las libertades fhndamentales de los indigenas y el Relator
Especial sobre la cuestiOn de la tortura, enviO un llamamiento urgente en relaciOn con la situaciOn de
Samuel Alfonso Castellanos PiflOn, quien habria recibido otra amenaza de muerte el 31 de marzo
de 2003. La carta habria sido enviada ala oficina regional de ACAT. En la carta el abogado habria
sido advertido de que si no deJaba de trabaJar como abogado defensor de los acusados de la masacre
de 26 indigenas en la poblaciOn de Agua Fria, seria asesinado. Las amenazas habrian empezado
cuando Samuel Alfonso Castellanos PiñOn y sus colegas habrian denunciado püblicamente que las
personas acusadas de la masacre de Agua Fria fheron torturadas durante la investigaciOn.
60. El 24 de Julio de 2003, el Relator Especial, Junto con la Relatora Especial sobre eJecuciones
extraJudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias, enviO un llamamiento urgente respecto de la situaciOn de
peligro en la cual se encontrarian David Meza y Jesus Argueta. D c acuerdo con las informaciones
recibidas, tras ser detenido David Meza habria sido torturado y obligado a firmar una confesiOn en la
que se reconocia autor del asesinato. Al dia siguiente se habria retractado de dicha confesiOn,
afirmando que habria sido torturado y amenazado de muerte por agentes de policia. Asimismo, se
informO de que mientras estaban baJo la custodia de la policia Judicial de la PGJE no habrian podido
acceder a familiares o a un abogado de su elecciOn. En cuanto a Jesus Argueta, se informO de que
habria sido sometido a una presiOn psicolOgica indebida para hacerle confesar el asesinato.
Respuestas del Gobierno
61. Mediante comunicaciones de 29 de abril y 9 de diciembre de 2003, el Gobierno proporcionO
informaciOn en relaciOn con el llamamiento urgente que el Relator Especialhabia enviado el 23 de
abril de 2003 en relaciOn con la situaciOn de Samuel Alfonso Castellanos PiflOn. Segün el Gobierno,
como consecuencia de la queJa presentada por la ComisiOn Estatal de Derechos Humanos del Estado
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 21
de Oaxaca ci 4 de marzo de 2003, se habria impiementado una medida cautelar coordinada entre la
PGJE y la Direcciôn de seguridad pübiica dci Estado con ci fin de brindar medidas de seguridad.
Tambien se informo de que la policia preventiva dci Estado habria impiementado rondines
periodicos de vigilancia a las instalaciones de ACAT y OIDHO asi como en los domicilios
particulares de Samuel Aifonso Casteilanos Piflon, Beatriz Casas Arellanes, Carios Cruz Mozo e
Jnocencio LOpez Michel. Asimismo se informO de que se habria ordenado la prestaciOn de un
servicio de escoita puesto a disposiciOn de las mencionadas personas asi como ci inicio de las
investigaciones correspondientes.
62. Mediante comunicaciones de 8 de agosto y 11 de noviembre de 2003, ci Gobierno
proporcionO informaciOn en relaciOn con ci ilamamiento urgente que ci Relator Especial habia
enviado ci 24 dejuiio de 2003 en relaciOn con la situaciOn David Meza. Segün ci Gobierno, al rendir
su deciaraciOn ci Sr. Meza habria estado asistido en todo momento por un defensor de oficio y por
un representante de derechos humanos. Asimismo se informO de que ci propio Sr. Meza habria
manifestado que no habria recibido ningün tipo de presiOn por parte de elementos de la PGJE.
63. Mediante comunicaciones de 28 de octubre y 17 de noviembre de 2003, ci Gobierno
proporcionO informaciOn en relaciOn con ci ilamamiento urgente que ci Relator Especial, junto con
la Relatora Especial sobre ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias, ci Relator Especial
sobre la cuestiOn de la tortura y la Representante especial dci Secretario General sobre la situaciOn
de los defensores de los derechos humanos, habia enviado ci 14 de febrero de 2003 en relaciOn con
la situaciOn de inseguridad en la que se encontrarian Bianca Guadalupe LOpez, Victor Javier Garcia
y su esposa Miriam Garcia. Segün ci Gobierno, la orden de detenciOn contra Victor Javier Garcia
habria sido proferida con base en todos los elementos de prueba recabados y ante la presunta
intenciOn dci implicado de abandonar la ciudad. Una vez detenido, habria sido conducido a las
instalaciones de la subprocuraduria de la zona norte ubicadas en la caile Barranco Azul, y al rendir
su deciaraciOn sin coacciOn aiguna y asistido por un defensor, habria admitido su responsabilidad e
involucrado en los hechos a Gustavo Gonzalez Mesa, quien posteriormente habria sido detenido y
conducido a las instalaciones de la mencionada subprocuraduria. Segün ci Gobierno, al dictar ci auto
de formal prisiOn ci juez instructor habria destacado que la violencia encontrada en los cuerpos de
los indiciados no constituia la razOn por la cual hubieran firmado las primeras deciaraciones y habria
corroborado que al momento de la detenciOn no habrian existido las lesiones que posteriormente se
habrian exhibido en la deciaraciOn preparatoria. Ante este hecho ci Gobierno no descarta que las
lesiones hubiesen sido auto infligidas, ya que por la levedad de las mismas no habrian sido la causa
para confesar los hechos. Asimismo, ci hecho de que las deciaraciones scan identicas y congruentes
con los hechos objetivos dci caso permitiria inferir la autoria material de los hechos. El Gobierno
también informO que ci incidente de desvanecimiento de datos promovido por la defensa habria sido
decretado improcedente en virtud de que las conciusiones dci aludido dictamen no eran
necesariamente ci ünico medio de prueba para estabiecer la ocurrencia dci delito. Asimismo se
informO de que las etapas de instrucciOn y defensa habrian sido agotadas y que ci ministerio pübiico
habria ofrecido pruebas tendientes a acreditar ci pago de la reparaciOn dci daflo. Con relaciOn a la
acciOn de amparo promovida por los detenidos, ci Gobierno informO que ci tribunal federal habria
revocado la resoluciOn que la concedia y habria procedido a negar ci amparo y protecciOn de la
justicia federal, reiterando la demostraciOn de la probable responsabilidad en la comisiOn de los
delitos de violaciOn agravada y homicidio. Dc esta manera se habrian confirmado las actuaciones
ministeriales y las practicadas ante ci tribunal. Con relaciOn a la las medidas cautelares respecto de
Bianca Guadalupe LOpez, Victor Javier Garcia y Myriam Garcia, ci Gobierno informO que a pesar
de que dichas medidas habrian caducado, ci Gobierno continuaria con los rondines policiacos en ci
exterior de las direcciones de los beneficiarios a fin de saivaguardar su integridad fisica. Asimismo
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 22
se estaria gestionando ci trasiado de Victor Javier Garcia a un centro de readaptaciOn en Ciudad
Juárez, Estado de Chihuahua.
64. Mediante comunicaciOn dcl 10 de noviembre de 2003, ci Gobierno proporcionO informaciOn
adicional en reiaciOn con la muerte de Digna Ochoa y Plácido. Segün ci Gobierno, la fiscalia
especial para ci caso habria desarroilado la investigaciOn mediante indagatorias con ci fin de
estabiecer las circunstancias relacionadas con ci homicidio mediante tres hneas de investigaciOn:
militares, Guerrero y entorno social, familiar y personal. Dc acuerdo con la investigaciOn, durante la
vincuiaciOn de Digna Ochoa al instituto Pro Juárez, su participaciOn como abogada habria sido
reducida de manera tal que no existiria evidencia objetiva de que su intervenciOnjuridica hubiese
propiciado o causado afectaciOn de los intereses de aiguna persona o autoridad relacionada que
permitiese estabiecer vincuiaciOn con su muerte. A lo anterior se adjunta la renuncia de Digna
Ochoa al instituto Pro Juárez ci 31 de octubre de 2000, en medio de un presunto ambiente de tensiOn
y desacuerdos, primordialmente por su inconformidad de salir dci pais y por las supuestas dudas, por
parte de aigunos compafleros, respecto dci üitimo incidente de amenaza. Otras informaciones
recaudadas habrian permitido afirmar que ci arma de fuego hailada en ci lugar de los hechos habria
pertenecido a la victima y segün los testimonios en torno a la presencia de personas desconocidas
ésta se encontrariajustificada como un hecho ordinario y normal, pues se trata de un domiciiio que
cuenta con despachos de abogados por lo que resuitaria cotidiana la entrada y salida de personas
desconocidas para los propios habitantes. Con reiaciOn a las amenazas, ci conocimiento de las
averiguaciones que se adelantan por parte de la Procuraduria General de Justicia continüan en curso,
sin embargo las inspecciones habrian permitido determinar la probabilidad de que ci contenido de
aigunos de los escritos hailados o de los que se tiene conocimiento hubiese sido creado por la propia
Digna Ochoa. Finaimente ci Gobierno informO de que la decision de la fiscal encargada dci caso de
no ejercer la acciOn penal al no demostrarse pienamente la existencia dci delito de homicidio
encontraria soporte en los anaiisis de peritos en materia de psicologia y estudio psicodinamico de la
personalidad. La mencionada resoiuciOn habria sido autorizada ci 17 de septiembre de 2003 por
parte dci coordinador de agentes auxiliares dci procurador.
65. Mediante comunicaciOn dci 11 noviembre de 2003 ci Gobierno proporcionO informaciOn
adicional concerniente al ilamamiento urgente que ci Relator Especial habia enviado ci
14 de febrero de 2003 en reiaciOn con la situaciOn de Gustavo Gonzalez Meza. Segün ci Gobierno,
la causa de la muerte determinada en la autopsia the: tromboembolia cardiopuimonar, coaguiaciOn
intravascular diseminada y hemangiomas multiples, los cuales habrian ocurrido despues de la
intervenciOn quirürgica efectuada con base en una vaioraciOn medica ordenada, 15 dias antes dci
failecimiento por ci jefe dci servicio medico de la prisiOn dci Cereso mediante la cual se habria
detectado la existencia de una hernia inguinal. Asimismo, de acuerdo con ci testimonio de varios
internos Gustavo Gonzalez Meza habria manifestado su desco de operar una hernia inguinal que
padecia debido al dolor que la misma ic generaba. Segün ci Gobierno, no se habrian apreciado
huelias de violencia ni desorden en la ceida dci detenido al momento dci haiiazgo de su cuerpo.
Nicaragua
Respuestas del Gobierno
66. Mediante comunicaciOn dci 14 de enero de 2003, ci Gobierno proporcionO informaciOn en
reiaciOn con ci ilamamiento urgente que ci Relator Especial, junto con la Relatora Especial sobre
ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias, enviO ci 7 de octubre de 2002 en reiaciOn con la
situaciOn de iajuez Juana Méndez Perez. Segün ci Gobierno, en ci curso de las averiguaciones se
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 23
habrIa logrado la individualizacion de uno de los presuntos autores de las amenazas. Asimismo ci
Gobierno informo que en la actualidad lajuez Juana Mendez Perez y su familia contarlan con doce
agentes policiales encargados de brindar protecciôn permanente.
Saudi Arabia
Communications to the Government
67. 0117 July 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the
human rights of migrants regarding Sarah Dematera, citizen of the Philippines, who was sentenced
to death by a judgement issued on 14 November 1993 for bludgeoning to death the wife of her
employer, four days after starting herjob as a domestic servant in Saudi Arabia. Ms. Dematera
reportedly stated she was a witness to the killing and described the alleged perpetrator as an Arab
male, who ordered her to move and cover the body, clean the murder weapon and wipe up the blood.
She is said to have always protested her innocence. Ms. Dematera's trial took place on 4 October
1993 in Islamic Court No. 39/4 and, reportedly, she was not assisted by a lawyer or an interpreter
during the court proceedings. She reportedly does not speak Arabic and has very limited fluency in
English. It is also reported that the Philippines consular officials did not have access to her during
the proceedings.According to the information received, the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs
informed that the execution has been postponed until the minor children of the deceased reach the
age of majority when they can decide, along with other heirs, whether to request the execution of the
accused. The family of the accused could accept monetary compensation in lieu of execution of the
death sentence.
Communications from the Government
68. On 17 February 2003, the Government provided some preliminary comments regarding the
Special Rapporteur's report on his mission to Saudi Arabia (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add. 3). The
Government advised that with respect to certain recommendations contained in the report
(paras. 109 (a) and (c), 110 (a) and (b) and 111(c), (f) and (g)) these recommendations were being
applied, implemented or adopted.
69. On 30 October 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteurs'joint urgent appeal
of 7 July 2003 and advised that the fifty-fifth session of the Commission on Human Rights decided
to discontinue consideration of this case. The Government further advised that information
previously sent concerning an explanation of the procedure of the enforcement of the death penalty
is a sufficient explanation concerning this case.
Serbia and Montenegro
Communications to the Government
70. On 23 May 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning detainees in
Serbia who were denied prompt access to a lawyer as a result of amendments made on 11 April to
the Law on Organized Crime passed during the state of emergency declared on 12 March 2003
(upon assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic) and subsequently lifted on 22 April. These
amendments enabled the police to prevent detainees from contacting a lawyer for a period of up to
two months. Reportedly, over one thousand people were detained on suspicion of involvement in
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 24
the assassination or in organized crime. These detainees are permitted access to counsel upon
examination by an investigating judge but, according to the information received, only
approximately three hundred detainees have appeared before an investigating judge.
Communications from the Government
71. On 16 December 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's communication
of 23 May 2003. The Government transmitted a response by the Public Prosecutor on the
implementation of the Law on Organized Crime during the state of emergeny in the Republic of
Serbia. The response outlined in detail certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC)
defining the status of a person under investigation and his or her rights with regard to due process of
the law, in particular the right of defence. Article 229 of CCP sets out the rights of an accused
person upon arrest, including the right to counsel, within 24 hours, of one's own choice and pro
bono if necessary and the length of time that a suspect can be held (48 hours) before being released
if there is no investigation. According to the information received, provisions of CPC apply to
organized crime offences unless otherwise provided for in the “Law on the organization and powers
of governmental agencies in suppressing organized crime”, which enables an authorized official of
the Ministry of the Interior to hold persons in preventative detention, ordinarily lasting up to
24 hours, exceptionally for 30 more days, for information and evidence gathering. Article 15(d) of
this law provides that the Minister responsible for home affaires may propose, after he is satisfied
with the soundness of the recommendation made, that the detained person be held for a further
period of 30 days. The Government advised that during the state of emergency, 2,264 persons were
brought before investigative judges and 1,720 were remanded in custody. At the time of the
response 1,286 detainees were no longer in detention and 434 persons were still in custody.
Sri Lanka
Communications to the Government
72. On 7 February 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal concerning threats made
against two district judges, the former President of the Bar Association, Desmond Fernando, and
editor Victor Ivan Ravaya. According to the information received, on 24 January 2003 posters with
slogans against the two district judges and Mr. Ravaya were pasted to buildings in the premises of
the Supreme Court. There was concern that this threatening act might be related to the legal action
instituted by the two district judges against the Chief Justice and the Judicial Service Commission
on the grounds that they had obstructed the holding of the 60th anniversary celebrations of the
Judicial Service Officers' Association as the posters were displayed on the same day as this case was
being heard before the court.
73. On 4 April 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter requesting a mission to Sri Lanka.
Communications from the Government
74. On 3 January 2003, the Government provided further information to the Special
Rapporteurs' joint urgent appeal of 13 September 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1, paras. 174 and
175) regarding the case of Nandani Sriyalantha ilerath. This response followed interim
observations transmitted by the Government on 10 October 2002. According to the Government's
response an investigation was initiated by the Criminal Invetigations Department (CID) on 21 June
2002. The investigation revealed that Ms. Herath was arrested by the Wariyapola Police on 8 March
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 25
2002 and was allegedly tortured while in custody. On the advice of the Attorney-General,
Ms. Herath was medically examined by a number of medical officers. The Attorney-General further
instructed CID to conduct an investigation into the alleged threat to Priyantha Gamage, the
counsel of Ms. Herath, and Nishanta Kumara, human rights activist, by the Wariyapola Police.
Ms. Herath's lawyer allegedly stated that on or about 2 September 2002, four unknown persons had
come to his house and enquired whether he was appearing for the case of Ms. Herath. He therefore
allegedly believed that these persons had come to threaten him but did not make a complaint to the
police as information available was not sufficient. Investigations were also reportedly conducted
into the allegation of assault on Mr. Kumara. He reportedly only stated that, when he was returning
home by bus on the night of 10 July 2002, a person called Sunil pointed a knife at him
threateningly, asking whether he was the one working for Ms. Herath. Investigations were also
conducted into the allegation of threats against two other lawyers who had previously appeared on
behalf of Ms. Herath. The lawyer who had withdrawn from handling Ms. Herath's case is said to
have stated that his client did not carry out his instructions properly and that therefore he, on his
own initiative, withdrew from handling the case. He fhrther allegedly informed that there were no
threats or intimidation whatsoever from anyone in this respect. It was finally stated that the
Attorney General was considering the possibility of pressing criminal charges against those
responsible for the alleged torture of Ms. Herath.
Sudan
Communications to the Government
75. On 14 May 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding the death sentence of Al-
Taher Ahmad llamdan, a fifteen-year-old boy, by a court in Nyala, South Darfur state. According
to the information received, Mr. Hamdan along with 25 other men were found guilty of killing
30 people and injuring a fhrther 28 persons in a raid on the village of Singita, South Darfhr, on
31 December 2002. It is alleged that under the procedures for special courts in South Darfur, which
were reportedly set up by decree of the Wali of South Darfhr in 2001, defendants are not permitted
to be represented by lawyers except by special permission. Consequently, all 39 accused persons
were reportedly defended by three lawyers who were not able to communicate with their clients. It
is also reported that the lawyers were only able to access the case file five days before the trial
opened on 17 March 2003. There were also concerns regarding the independence of the judges
involved in the trial (one being from the police and another from the army) as the defence lawyers
were reportedly only allowed to ask a limited number of questions to both the accused and
witnesses whereas the prosecutors were able to ask an unlimited number of questions.
76. On 3 July 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding Tibin Abdel Rahman
Isaag, A lhadi Abaker ilammad, Abaker Ahrran, Abader Adam Bakheet, Isaag Abaker,
Saead Abdella Abaker, Mohamed Abdel Rahman Ibraheam, Easa Mohamed Adam and
Mohamed Abdella Yahya, who were reportedly sentenced to death by hanging by a Special Court
in the city of Kass, South Darfur state. There was concern that the death penalty has been imposed
following a judicial process that did not respect international standards for a fair trial. According to
the information received, all nine men were reportedly arrested on 13 November 2002 and accused
of taking part in an attack on the village of Alibya, 30 km west of Kass, which is populated by
members of the Fur ethnic group. Seven people were reportedly killed and 10 injured when a militia
of between 150 and 300 men attacked the village in 2002. It is reported that no other alleged
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 26
members of this militia have yet been arrested. The nine men reportedly deny having taken part in
the attack. Of the 18 prosecution witnesses who testified at the trial, none could allegedly confirm
that the accused had participated in the attack. According to the information received, the
procedures for special courts in South Darfhr, which were set up by decree of the wall (Governor)
of South Darfur in 2001, do not permit the defendants to be defended by lawyers except by special
permission. The nine defendants were reportedly represented by one lawyer, who was authorized to
attend the trial as a “friend” and who was allegedly allowed to ask the prosecution witnesses only
three or four questions during cross-examination. The men were reportedly found guilty by a panel
of judges and were sentenced to death on 12 June. Allegedly, the nine people accused have
appealed to the Special Appeal Court in Nyala. Should their appeal prove unsuccessful, they may
then appeal to the Supreme Court in the capital Khartoum and then to the Constitutional Court.
77. On 8 July 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group
on Arbitrary Detention regarding Gazi Suleiman, a lawyer and Chairperson of the Sudan Human
Rights Group, who was reportedly arrested on 2 July 2003 by officers of the National Security
Agency (NSA) and questioned about the Khartoum Declaration (E ‘laan El Khartoum). According
to the information received, this document, which has been signed by 18 leading political parties,
14 civil society groups and 78 prominent individuals, gives support to the Intergovernmental
Authority on Development (IGAD) Peace Process, the Machakos Protocol and the Cairo
Declaration, which calls for Khartoum to become the national secular capital of the Sudan and for
respect of all Sudanese citizens, irrespective of race, religion or political affiliation. Since his arrest,
Mr. Suleiman's whereabouts are reportedly unknown.
Communications from the Government
78. On 3 July 2003 the Government sent a general response to the Special Rapporteurs'joint
urgent appeal of 3 December 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add 1., para. 182), explaining its position on
how Sudanese courts comply with the following regulations: 1. elderly people aged 70 years and
over are not subject to execution; 2. a minor aged 18 years or less is not subject to execution or
conscription into the armed forces; 3. a pregnant woman is subject to execution only after two
years have elapsed since the deliveryof her baby; 4. a woman breastfeeding her baby is liable to
execution only after two years of breastfeeding.
79. On 29 July, 9 September and 22 October 2003, the Government responded to the Special
Rapporteurs' urgent appeal of 8 July 2003 advising that lawyer Gazi Suleiman was released on
14 July 2003 and claimed he was well treated. The Government fhrther advised that Mr. Suleiman
was nominated for the 2003 United Nations Prize in the field of human rights.
80. On 27 October 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteurs' urgent appeal of 14
May 2003 and advised that the juvenile Ahmad Amar Adam Hamdan was not sentenced to death
since the Sudan Constitution does not provide for the death penalty to juveniles under 18 years of
age. The Government stated that he was committed to a reformatory institution to serve a three-year
term beginning on 26 April 2003 and that he was granted the right to appeal that verdict. The
Government fhrther submitted that, as far as the 23 detainees were concerned, they were sentenced
to death but that all of them lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal, which was being considered
by the competent judicial authorities.
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 27
Swaziland
Press releases
81. On 15 April 2003 the Special Rapporteur issued a press release to express concern over the
continued deterioration of the rule of law in Swaziland. The Special Rapporteur cited such recent
developments as the resignation in protest at this situation of the Chief Justice of the High Court,
Stanley Sapire, the effective demotion of Judge Thomas Masuku and the possible impending
deportation of two senior members of the Law Society of Swaziland, including the President, Paul
M. Shilubane, for holding dualnationality. He expressed further dismay that members of the Law
Society of Swaziland, in an act of protest, decided not to appear in court before any judges recently
appointed by the Government. The justice system cannot function in this environment of mistrust.
Another issue of increasing concern is the continued use of the controversial 1998 Non-Bailable
Offences Act, which denies magistrates the discretion to grant bail and which has led to a crisis of
overcrowding in prisons. This situation puts additional strain on a prison system that is already at a
breaking point. The Special Rapporteur welcomed the International Bar Association's report on
Swaziland released on 2 April urging the Government to establish a national plan of action to
address serious flaws in the justice system and to implement the urgently needed reforms, including
a new draft constitution. The Special Rapporteur called upon the Government to take immediate
steps to avert an impending crisis. Swaziland needs today, more than ever, a separation of powers
between its executive and judicial branches of government in order to function as a fully democratic
nation.
82. On 27 June 2003 the Special Rapporteur issued a press release to express concern over
recent developments in Swaziland where a number of lawyers have been charged with contempt of
court and at least two lawyers have been convicted for the same offence for refhsing to appear
before two recently appointed judges. He had also learnt that the entire executive body of the Law
Society has been summoned to appear in court to answer charges of inciting lawyers not to appear
before these judges. The Law Society adopted a resolution calling upon its lawyers not to appear
before these judges because their appointments were constitutionally flawed. If indeed the
appointments of these judges are constitutionally flawed then the Law Society is quite right in
taking the position that it took. Flawed judicial appointments would certainly not give legal
legitimacy to the courts in which the judges sit. Such courts would certainly undermine the rule of
law. Judges should be mindful of the legitimacy of the courts in which they sit and should see to it
that their appointments meet all the constitutional requirements instead of ordering lawyers to
appear before their unconstitutional courts to answer charges of contempt of court for failing to
appear before them. How can there be contempt of court when that court is not constitutional and
has no legitimacy? The Special Rapporteur called upon the Government and its competent agencies
to stop these threats and harassment of the Law Society and its lawyers and instead to take measures
to review the appointments of the judges concerned. The charges against these lawyers and the
executive body of the Law Society should be withdrawn. Further, the convictions against the
lawyers who failed to appear before these courts should be set aside.
Syrian Arab Republic
Communications to the Government
83. On 16 April 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 28
the situation of human rights defenders regarding ilassan Saleh and Marwan ‘Uthman who have
reportedly been transferred from the Criminal Section to the Political Section of ‘Adra Prison, to the
north of Damascus where they have allegedly been denied visits by lawyers, relatives and doctors.
According to the information received, the Military Court recently changed the charge against both
prisoners from “membership of an unauthorized organization” to “inciting sectarian strife”, which
meant that the case had to be referred to the Supreme State Security Court (SSSC), which,in turn,
added the charge of “attempting to sever a part of the Syrian territories”. It was alleged that in June
2002, SSSC indefinitely banned the defendants' lawyer Anwar al-Bunni from appearing before
SSSC. Other lawyers are now said to be following the case and will represent Mr. Saleh and
Mr. ‘Uthman. The concern is that SSSC operates outside the ordinary criminal justice system and is
only accountable to the Ministry of the Interior. In addition, its verdicts are not subject to appeal
and its trials are not conducted in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
84. On 26 June 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention regarding Abdel Rahman Shaghouri who was reportedly arrested by secret
police agents without warrant on 23 February 2003 at a checkpoint between the town of Qunaytra
and Damascus. It is believed that his detention is linked to his accessing web sites and passing on
information of a political nature about his country. It is reported that since his arrest he has been
denied access to his lawyer and relatives and that he is currently held at the Military Security
Branch prison in Damascus.
Communications from the Government
85. On 22 May 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteurs' urgent appeal of 16
April 2003 and stated that Mr. Saleh and Mr. ‘Uthman were members of an outlawed political party
and were responsible for inciting acts of violence and unrest and for distributing literature that was
critical of national policy and in breach of the Associations Act. Both men are being tried before the
courts.
86. On 15 September 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteurs' urgent appeal of
26 June 2003 and advised that the competent authorities had arrested Mr. Shaghuri for using the
Internet and distributing articles to persons outside the country. The competent authorities believe
that in view of the contents of those articles the accused was in breach of State security and was
arraigned before the Higher State Security Court to admit or deny the charge.
Tajikistan
Communications to the Government
87. On 11 June 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention regarding Shamsuddin Shamsuddinov, deputy chairman of the Islamic
Renaissance Party of Tajikistan. It was reported that he was arrested on 30 May 2003 at his home in
Chkalovsk, northern Tajikistan, by unknown persons. He was allegedly last seen at the Chkalovsk
Airport. On 4 June 2003, the Chief Prosecutor, SharifKubanova, informed the press that
Shamsuddin Shamsuddinov had been arrested and accused of having committed serious crimes. He
is reportedly being held at a detention centre in Dushanbe, and has been permitted neither family
visits nor access to legal counsel.
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 29
Tunisia
Communications envoyées
88. Par une lettre datee du 30 decembre 2002, qui a etc omise dans le rapport precedant
(E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1) pour des raisons techniques, le Rapporteur special, conjointement avec le
Rapporteur special sur la torture et la Representante speciale du Secretaire general concernant la
situation des defenseurs des droits de l'homme, ont informe le gouvernement qu'ils avaient reçu des
renseignements selon lesquels Mokhtar Yahiaoui, juge, president du Centre tunisien pour
l'independance de lajustice (CTIJ) et membre du comite de liaison de l'Association internationale
de solidarite avec les prisonniers politiques (AISPP), aurait etc agresse et enleve par des agents de
police en civil le 11 decembre 2002, alors qu'il se rendait chez son avocat a Tunis. Ii aurait etc
hospitalise suite a cette agression. . Par ailleurs, le cabinet de Me Bhiri, son avocat et membre du
bureau executif du CTIJ, et celui de sa femme, M Akermi, secretaire generale de l'AISPP,
auraient etc encercles par unimportant dispositif policier le 13 decembre 2002. A cette occasion, les
deux avocats auraient etc agresses par des agents de police, et leur enfant de 13 ans frappe au
visage. Lassad Jouhri, membre fondateur de l'AISPP, present au moment des faits, aurait etc
frappe et hospitalise. Plusieurs avocats, dont Mes AbderraoufAyadi, Sihem Rostom, Néjib Ben
Youssef, Mokhtar Tritfi, Mohamed Goumani et Youssef Rezui, auraient par la suite egalement
agresses ou autrement empeches d'acceder au cabinet de leurs confreres, MesBh n et Akermi. En
outre, Me Samir DiIIou, membre fondateur de l'AISPP, aurait etc arête a son cabinet le
13 decembre 2002 et interroge pendant plusieurs heures. Ii aurait reçu un coup ala tête qui lui aurait
fait perdre connaissance. Finalement, il etait allegue qu'un certain nombre de personnes, dont
Abdallah Zouari et Me Said Mechichi, auraient etc empêchees de participer a la celebration du
54Cme anniversaire de la Declaration universelle des droits de l'homme, organisee par la Ligue
tunisienne des droits de l'homme (LTDH) durant la soiree du 13 decembre 2002.
89. Le 21 janvier 2003, le Rapporteur special a envoyc un appel urgent relatif a l'agression dont
auraient fait l'objet, le 13 decembre 2002, les avocats Saida Akremi Bhiri et Nourredine Bhiri,
ainsi que leurs enfants, par des pretendus policiers en civil non identifies. Mme Bhiri aurait etc
conduite de force au MinistCre de l'interieur oü elle aurait etc longuement interrogee. Son bureau
serait touj ours encercle par des agents de securite qui empêchent tout autre avocat d'y acceder. Deux
autres avocats, Samir Ben Amor et Samir Dilou, auraient egalement etc arrêtes le même jour. Le
17 decembre 2002, l'avocat Mohamed Jmour, en sa qualite de secretaire general de l'Ordre
national des avocats de Tunisie, aurait tente d'acceder au bureau de Mme Akremi. Ii aurait
cependant etc attaque par quatre agents qui surveillaient le batiment. Ceux-ci l'auraient traine dans
la rue tout en le rouant de coups et en l'insultant. D'autres avocats, tels que Anwar Oled A u,
YoussefRezjai et M. Ayadi, auraient egalement etc violemment agresses peu aprCs. Le batonnier
de l'Ordre national des avocats de Tunisie, M. Bechir Essid, aurait, sans succCs, proteste auprCs du
MinistCre de l'interieur contre ces agressions. Le Conseil national de l'Ordre aurait depose une
plainte nominative contre les auteurs de ces agissements. Le Parquet n'aurait cependant pas donne
suite a cette affaire. Par ailleurs, le 19 janvier 2003, la tenue de l'assemblee generale extraordinaire
du barreau tunisien convoquce par le Conseil national de l'Ordre pour discuter de la situation
d'insecurite dans laquelle se trouvent les avocats, aurait etc empêchee par certains de ses adherents,
membres actifs de la cellule professionnelle << Avocats >> du parti au pouvoir, le RCD, qui en
auraient bloque l'entree.
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 30
90. Le 22 juillet 2003, le Rapporteur special, conjointement avec le Rapporteur special sur la
promotion et la protection du droit a la liberte d'opinion et d'expression et la Representante speciale
du Secretaire general concernant la situation des defenseurs des droits de l'homme, ont envoyc un
appel urgent relatives aux atteintes presumees portees a la liberte de reunion en Tunisie, ainsi que
sur l'agression dont aurait fait l'objet Me Radhia Nasraoui, avocate et presidente de l'Association de
lutte contre la torture en Tunisie. Selon les informations reçues le 13 juillet 2003, un groupe de
pretendus policiers en civil aurait empeche la tenue dune reception organisee par la Ligue
tunisienne des ecrivains libres, en faisant un barrage aux abords du domicile de M. Jalloul Azzouna,
ecrivain et president de la Ligue, oü devait avoir lieu la reception, obligeant ainsi tous les invites a
faire demi-tour. Arrives peu aprés, Me Nasraoui et M. Azzouna auraient reussi a passer le barrage.
C'est alors que Me Nasraoui aurait etc violemment frappee et M. Azzouna, qui tentait de la defendre,
aurait etc malmene. Me Nasraoui, qui souffre de contusions aux bras, aurait decide de porter plainte.
Des craintes ont etc exprimees que cette attaque ne soit une reponse a la creation par Me Nasraoui de
l'Association de lutte contre la torture en Tunisie, dont l'enregistrement aurait etc reffise le 26 juin
dernier.
Communications reçues
91. Le 28 juillet 2003, le gouvernement a repondu qu'aucune plainte n'avait etc deposee quant a
la supposee agression de M. Yahyaoui (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1 par. 205 et 210 a 217), et en reponse
a l'appel du Rapporteur special en date du 21 janvier 2003, il souligne d'abord de l'absence de
preuves soutenant les accusations formulees contre les autorites. Ii indique qu'aucune des
associations visees na d'existencejuridique legale; par consequent, aucune personne physique ne
peut pretendre les representer. Ii ajoute, dune part, que l'AISPP a induit en erreur plusieurs ONG et
defenseurs des droits de l'homme suite a une annonce erronee, les obligeant par la suite a exprimer
des regrets et des excuses officielles. D'autre part, le LTDDH, par decision judiciaire, est
uniquement limitee a l'organisation d'assemblees generales electives. S'agissant du vol perpetre au
prejudice du cabinet de Me Noureddine Bhiri, le gouvernement declare que les auteurs ont etc
interpelles. Quant a M. Yahyaoui, il ne s'est pas conforme aux demarches administratives requises
par les autorites concernant le renouvellement de son passeport suite a la modification de sa
situation professionnelle. Le gouvernement souligne egalement qu'aucune plainte personnelle na etc
deposee auprés des autorites a la suite des pretendues agressions dont ont etc victimes toutes les
personnes mentionnees dans cet appel urgent. Ii stipule enfin que M. Adallah Zouari etait un detenu
de droit commun, et non d'opinion, suite a sa condamnation pour des infractions graves du méme
ordre. Sa liberation conditionnelle, par decision judiciaire, ne s'etend pas a l'application de la peine
complementaire qui fixe son lieu de residence, restreignant ainsi ses possibilites de deplacement.
Turkey
Communications to the Government
92. On 19 December 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the
Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the
situation of human rights defenders and the Representative of the Secretary- General on internally
displaced persons concerning Sezgin Tanrikulu, Chairman of Diyarbakir's Bar Association,
Sabahattin Korkmaz, Burhan Deyar and ilabibe Deyar, all lawers of the Diyarbakir's Bar
Association. According to the information received, on 5 December 2003 the Diyarbakir Heavy
Penal Court held its second hearing against these four lawyers, who were indicted on 3 June 2003
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 31
under article 240 of the Turkish Penal Code and artice 59/1-2 of the Law on the Legal Profession for
“professional misconduct” and “abuse of legal responsibility” in connection with their
representation on compensation cases of 96 villages from the Kulp and Lice Districts reportedly
burned down in 1993 and 1994. The case was adjourned to 24 December and there was concern that
it was launched against the lawyers to intimidate and prevent them from denouncing the forced
evictions and house demolitions allegedly carried out against the Kurdish population living in
southern and south-eastern Turkey.
Communications from the Government
93. On 13 August 2003, the Government provided additional information to the Special
Rapporteurs' joint urgent appeal of 23 May 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/65/Add. 1, paras. 219 and 223) and
advised that Salih Yilar's complaint of ill- treatment was investigated and as a result of this
investigation a lawsuit was filed against two policemen and the case was ongoing.
94. On 24 December 2003, the Government provided additional information to the Special
Rapporteurs' joint urgent appeal of 28 June 2001 (E/CN.4/2002/72/Add.1, paras. 185 and 188)
concerning 16 persons separately charged with publishing a book entitled Freedom of Thought
2000. With respect to the accused Sadik Tasdogan, he was acquitted by the Istanbul State Security
Court (that decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 11 June 2001). The other 15 accused
persons were acquitted on 7 September 2001 by the Turkish General Staff Military Court (that
decision was not appealed and is therefore final). The other lawsuit filed against these 15 accused
persons for “making propaganda for an armed terrorist organization through publication” contrary
to the Turkish Penal Code, Anti- Terror Law and Press Law resulted in their acquittal on
29 September 2003 following recent legislative changes undertaken as part of the general reform
process.
Turkinenistan
Communications to the Government
95. On 9 January 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning the conviction
and sentencing of Turkmen opposition leader and former Foreign Minister Boris Shikhmuradov
for the 25 November 2002 assassination attempt against President Saparmurat Niazov.
Mr. Shikhmuradov was arrested on 25 December in Ashgabad and on 29 December the Supreme
Court sentenced him, together with three exiled opposition leaders (Mr. Saparmurat Yklymov, the
former deputy Minister of Agriculture; Mr. Khudaiberdy Orazov, the former head of the Central
Bank of Turkmenistan; and Mr. Nurmukhamed Khanamov, a former ambassador to Turkey- all
convicted in absentia), to the maximum prison term of 25 years for attempted assassination and
coupd'etat. Reportedly, the following day, the Halk Maslikhat, Turkmenistan's supreme
representative body, increased the sentence to life imprisonment, citing a new measure for those
found guilty of treason. The trial and conviction of such serious charges were completed in four
days after arrest and has raised concerns as to whether the accused were accorded due process
recognized under international law. Of concern is the fact that Turkmenistan's supreme
representative body imposed a final sentence over the initial sentence handed down by the court.
96. On 28 January 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal concerning the trials of
many individuals in connection with the recent assassination attempt against the President of
Turkmenistan. According to the information received, on 13 January 2003, the trial of
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 32
32 individuals, including Batyr Berdyev, Amanmukhammet Yklymov and Orazmamed
Yklymov, commenced. It is alleged that the defendants were not given adequate time and facilities
for the preparation of their defence and for communicating with their legal representative. In
particular, it is alleged that the defendants' lawyers were not given sufficient notice of the date of
commencement of legal proceedings, that the defendants were not permitted to review the evidence
adduced against them and that several lawyers stated in court that they were ashamed of
representing their clients. No information has been published about the names of the defendants who
appeared before the court, the nature of the charges brought against them and the place of the trial.
97. On 6 June 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter requesting a mission to Turkmenistan.
Communications from the Government
98. On 12 February 2003 the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's communications
of 9 and 28 January 2003 concerning the trial of a number of individuals for committing terrorist
acts and making an attempt on the life of the President of Turkmenistan. The Government advised
that the investigation was conducted in strict conformity with national legislation and norms of
international law. Each defendant was afforded legal representation and the services of a translator
and was able to prepare a full defence. The Government believes the investigation was conducted in
a transparent manner and initiated extradition proceedings for accused persons who were foreign
citizens. The Government further advised that the results of the investigation were reported to the
highest representative body in the country, the People's Council of Turkmenistan, which made a
political and legal evaluation of the events and that important State decisions aimed at strengthening
the security of the country were adopted. The Government claims that the allegations are
unsubstantiated and based on false interpretations.
Uganda
Communications to the Government
99. On 13 October 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
regarding information about a public announcement by the Law Council of Uganda made in
August 2003, in which the Council stated that it would enforce regulation 22 of the Advocates
(Professional Conduct) Regulations of 1977 which reportedly states that all lawyers are to refrain
from participating in radio talk shows, making public comments, writing articles or issuing press
statements on legal or constitutional matters. Reportedly, the only way to be exempt from this
regulation would be to obtain express authorization from the Council, a body which is under the
authority of the Ministry of Justice. There is concern that lawyers may be restricted from exercising
their right to freedom of expression in their professional capacity.
United States of America
Communications to the Government
100. On 16 June 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint communication with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture concerning Jose Padilla, an American citizen, who has been
held incommunicado in military custody in the United States of America as “enemy combatant”
without charge, trial or access to his lawyer or family for over one year. According to the
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 33
information received, Mr. Padilla was arrested at Chicago Airport on 8 May 2002 and originally
held as a “material witness” by the Department of Justice during a grand jury probe into an alleged
conspiracy to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” on a city in the United States of America.
However, on 9 June 2002, the Government reportedly transferred him from the jurisdiction of the
criminal justice system to military custody and he has not had access to a lawyer. The transfer to
military custody was made on the basis of an order by President Bush designating Mr. Padilla to be
an “enemy combatant” closely associated withAl-Qaida, whose detention it said was necessary to
prevent him from aiding an attack on the United States. He has been held since that date in solitary
confinement on a naval base in Charleston, South Carolina. In December 2002, a United States
district court upheld the President's authority to detain enemy combatants, even if American citizens,
with a limited right of judicial review. However, the court also ruled that Mr. Padilla was entitled to
have consultations with his lawyer in order to respond to the Government's case. The Government
appealed, arguing that granting Mr. Padilla access to an attorney would hinder its ongoing process of
interrogating him. He reportedly remains without access to his lawyer pending the Government's
appeal.
101. On 11 July 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding Darnell Williams who,
according to our information, was due to be executed by the State of Indiana on 1 August 2003. It is
reported that he is seeking commutation of his death sentence and is asking the Governor for a
reprieve for the purposes of DNA testing. Mr. Williams has, according to the information
receveived, always maintained that, while he was involved in the crime, he was not present when the
shooting occurred and that appeal courts have agreed that his lawyers' performance on this issue
was deficient but stated it did not affect the outcome of the trial. At the trial, the prosecution
presented the report of a serologist, who had found three blood spots on Mr. Williams' shorts.
However, defence lawyers did not hire their own experts to evaluate the blood spots, so their cross-
examination with regard to this piece of evidence was limited. Newly discovered information from
the State serologist's notes now suggests that the blood may not have come from the victims. A
DNA test on these blood spots could therefore support Mr. Williams' claim that he was not present
at the shooting. Mr. Williams appeal lawyers have sought to have the blood subjected to DNA
testing and the trial prosecutor supports this request. In addition, a witness with exonerating
evidence was reportedly interviewed by the prosecution, but Mr. Williams' defence lawyers did not
review this evidence despite being aware of the interview tape and therefore this witness did not
testify at the trial. According to the information received, appeals against Mr. Williams' death
sentence on the grounds of failure by his lawyers to present the jury with evidence of his alleged
limited mental competence have been unsuccessful.
102. On 19 December 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent anotherjoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding Darnell Williams.
According to the information received, the late Governor, Frank O'Bannon, stopped Mr. Williams'
scheduled execution on 1 August 2003 in order to allow modern DNA blood testing. Reportedly, the
DNA results, released on 12 December 2003, support Mr. Williams' claim that the blood did not
come from the victims. The blood evidence was reportedly the key element in the claim that
Mr. Williams was at the scene of the shooting, yet despite these new developments, a spokesperson
for the Attorney- General reportedly stated that the State of Indiana would press ahead with the
execution of Mr. Williams.
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 34
Communications from the Government
103. On 1 April 2003, the Government sent a detailed reply to the Special Rapporteurs' joint
urgent appeal of 18 September 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/85/Add.1, paras. 254-273) regarding cases of
detention of many individuals, particularly non-US nationals, since 11 September 2001. The
Government responded that it would refrain from disclosing information on individual cases as the
release of this information could jeopardize the conduct of ongoing investigations, the safety and
privacy of aliens and public safety and interest. The Government did, however, advise that since
11 September 2001, the United States had mobilized unprecedented resources to prevent further
attacks against the country while at the same time safeguarding civil liberties. To this end, the
United States Department of Justice has used the full weight of the federal justice system as a
method of neutralizing potential terrorist threats by prosecuting those who violated the law and
thereby posed a national security risk. In some cases, the Department of Justice had prosecuted
individuals for crimes not directly related to terrorism, including enforcement of its immigration
laws. In this regard, the investigations in connection with the events of 11 September 2001 led to the
arrest and detention of many aliens found in the United States in violation of the Immigration and
Nationality Act). Their treatment while in INS custody was consistent with the protection aliens are
afforded under United States law.
104. As for the concerns raised on the non- disclosure of a list of individuals detained on
immigration law violations or deemed by the Government to have associations or information
relating to the events of 11 September and related terrorist investigations, it was reported by the
Government that such a policy was based on the professional judgement of senior law enforcement
officials, including those from the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice and the FBI with
leading roles in 11 September investigations. Disclosure of the identities of detainees would have
endangered the ongoing investigations, as well as the detainees themselves, and could have revealed
sources and methods of investigation to terrorist organizations.
105. Several measures had been taken to guarantee the nation's continued security and integrity of
the 11 September investigations. These include, inter alia, refraining from publicly disclosing some
information regarding the detainees and closing their immigration court hearings to the public for as
long as the aliens concerned remained of interest to the investigations. Making public such
information could have revealed road maps of the investigations and allowed terrorist organizations
to alter further attacks plan, to intimidate witnessesand to fabricate evidence.
106. In responding to concerns expressed by the Special Rapporteurs about the resulting detention
of non-US nationals, the Government provided some details regarding the number of individuals
detained in INS custody as a result of 11 September investigations: as at 28 March 2003, INS had
detained 766 aliens on immigration law violations at some time since the events of 11 September
2001 and in connection with the investigations related to those events. Of these 766, 505 had been
deported or had left the country voluntarily. Only 1 of these aliens remained in custody as part of
active 11 September investigations.
107. As for individuals held on immigration charges in the custody of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), they were entitled to due process protections in accordance with United
States law. All detainees had been notified of the charges against them and were given the right to
contest those charges in some type of an immigration proceeding. They were also given lists of pro
bono counsels and advised of their right to retain a lawyer at no expense to the Government. They
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 35
were also given the opportunity to seek release onbail to continue to prepare their cases, to examine
the evidence against them and to apply for discretionary relief from removal, as well as the right of
appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and to judicial review in the federal courts. In addition,
the United States adhered to its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to
notify aliens of their rights to consular notification, communication and access.
Press releases
108. On 12 March 2003 the Special Rapporteur issued a press release about the effects of the
ruling by the United States' Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that Guantanamo
Bay detainees cannot invoke the jurisdiction of United States courts because the territory is not part
of the country. The Special Rapporteur stated that the decision could set a dangerous precedent as it
appears to imply that a Government of a sovereign State could lease a piece of land from a
neighbouring State, set up a detention camp, fhlly operate and control it, arrest suspects of terrorism
from otherjurisdictions, send them to this camp, deny them their legal rights -- including principles
of due process generally granted to its own citizens -- on grounds that the camp is physically outside
its jurisdiction. By such conduct, the Government of the United States, in this case, will be seen as
systematically evading the application of domestic and international law so as to deny these suspects
their legal rights. Detention without trial offends the first principle of the rule of law. The Special
Rapporteur stated that the implications of this decision are far- reaching as the war on terrorism
cannot possibly be won by denial of legal rights, including fhndamental principles of due process for
those merely suspected of terrorism.
109. On 7 July 2003, the Special Rapporteur issued a press release to express alarm at the
implementation by the Government of the United States of the Military Order (Detention,
Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-citizens in the War against Terrorism) President Bush signed on
13 November 2001. Pursuant to this Order, six detainees may be brought to trial before a military
commission. These detainees have been described as suspected members of Al-Qaida or “otherwise
involved in terrorism directed against the United States”. In proceeding to apply these drastic
measures to counter terrorism, the Government of the United States is seen as defying United
Nations resolutions, including General Assembly resolution 57/219 of 18 December 2002 and
Security Council resolution 1456 of 20 January 2003. These resolutions reiterate and affirm that
States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism must be in accordance with
international law, including international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.
Uruguay
Comunicación enviada
110. El 26 de febrero de 2003, el Relator Especial, junto con la Relatora Especial sobre la
violencia contra la mujer, sus causas y sus consecuencias, enviO un llamamiento urgente en relaciOn
con el supuesto traslado por parte de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de lajuez penal Ana Lima a una
sede laboral. La Sra. Lima habrIa participado en programas de formaciOn en derechos humanos para
jueces y habrIa aplicado sus conocimientos en la materia en sus funciones judiciales. Uno de estos
casos serla el de la violaciOn de una menor, en el cual con base en las pruebas medicas solicitadas
por lajuez, se habrIa sentenciado a cuatrojOvenes. Posteriormente, bajo un procedimiento especial,
la Suprema Corte de Justicia habrIa perdonado a los sentenciados, poniéndolos en libertad sin haber
revocado la condena ni la sentencia. La Corte no habrIa brindado explicaciones respecto a tal
decision. El 9 de noviembre de 2002, la Sra. Lima habrIa tratado el caso relativo a la solicitud del
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 36
Gobierno de Espafla para la extradiciOn de un ciudadano de ese pals. El mes siguiente, la Corte
habr la decidido transferir a lajuez a una sede laboral. Esta decision habria sido percibida como una
medida de represalia y castigo en contra de lajuez por su implicaciOn en los casos arriba
mencionados y como una medida de alerta a otros miembros del poder judicial. Como protesta, la
Sra. Lima habr la presentado su dimisiOn.
111. Mediante comunicaciOn del 14 de abril 2003 el Relator Especial expresO al Gobierno de
Uruguay su preocupaciOn ante la publicaciOn de la carta de alegaciOn de fecha 26 de febrero 2003
enviadajuntamente con la Relatora Especial sobre la violencia contra la mujer, sus causas y sus
consecuencias, la cual habria sido difundida en el diario El Observador el dia 9 de abril 2003.
Respuestas del Gobierno
112. Mediante comunicaciOn del 14 de mayo de 2003, el Gobierno proporcionO informaciOn en
relaciOn con el llamamiento urgente que el Relator Especial, junto con la Relatora Especial sobre la
violencia contra la mujer, sus causas y sus consecuencias, habia enviado el 26 de febrero de 2003
sobre el supuesto traslado por parte de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de lajuez penal Ana Lima a
una sede laboral. Segün el Gobierno, la decision respecto al traslado de la Sra. Lima habr la tenido
como base razones de legalidad y de un mejor servicio de administraciOn de justicia. Asimismo el
Gobierno informO de que la decision no tendria carácter de sanciOn y no habria representado la
modificaci on de su categoria, rango o retribuci on ni tampoco del lugar de asignaciOn de las
funciones. El Gobierno tambien inform o que lajuez habria alegado razones personales como motivo
de su renuncia sin que hubiese acudido a la via contencioso anulatoria para obtener una eventual
reparaciOn de los daflos que se habrian causado con la decision administrativa.
113. Mediante comunicaciOn del 15 de mayo de 2003, el Gobierno proporcionO informaci on en
relaci on con la publicaci on de la carta de alegaci on de fecha 26 de febrero 2003 enviadajuntamente
con la Relatora Especial sobre la violencia contra la mujer, sus causas y sus consecuencias. Segün el
Gobierno, se desconocerlan los medios a través de los cuales dicha comunicaciOn se habria hecho
püblica.
Uzbekistan
Communications to the Government
114. On 11 June 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the
question of torture and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
regarding Khamila Ismailova, who was reportedly severely beaten by unknown attackers in her
home in Shurchi, Surkhandaria Province, on 13 May 2003. Her husband, Ergash Choriev, who was
also allegedly assaulted during this incident, reportedly died as a result of the beatings. Ms.
Ismailova was allegedly taken to Termez Prison on 3 June 2003 and not allowed to see her lawyer
until the following day and only in the presence of the prosecutor. It is believed Ms. Ismailova
eventually signed a confession to the murder of her husband and that the police claimed that her
injuries were self-inflicted. It is fhrther reported that on 9 June 2003 a new lawyer hired by the
family was denied access to her by the Chief of the Investigation Department at the Surkhandaria
Province Prosecutor's office. Although according to the domestic law, charges must be brought
against a person within 72 hours of his or her detention, it was reportedly not done so in this case.
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 37
115. On 4 July 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group
on Arbitrary Detention regarding ilairulla Ernazarov, a citizen of Samarkand Oblast, Narpai
region and former journalist for “Halk Suzi” and “Sport” newspapers, who was reportedly arrested
on 28 April 2003 by officers of the Service of National Security (SNS) in his apartment in Tashkent
City without being given any reason at that time. Three days later, his wife was allegedly informed
by a SNS officer that he had been wanted for three years for distributing audio cassettes of an
Islamic preacher, Abduvalli-kori. Hairulla Ernazarov was reportedly taken to the Isolation-
Investigation Centre of Samarkand SNS. It is alleged that a court proceeding against him began on
17 June 2003. His lawyers were allegedly not permitted to participate in the judicial proceedings. It
is believed that he was charged with being connected with “Vahhabism” and being a member of the
Hizb-Ut-Tahrir Party. Since his arrest he has reportedly not been allowed to receive visits from his
relatives or from his lawyers.
116. On 23 May 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter requesting a mission to Uzbekistan.
Communications from the Government
117. On 5 August 2003 the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's communication of 4
July 2003. The Government confirmed that ilairulla Ernazarov was arrested on 14 May 2003 and
that his trial was still ongoing and advised that during the pre-trial investigation Mr. Ernazarov was
represented by legal counsel from the Bagishamal district lawyers' association and due process was
ensured by the judicial officials of the Samarkand Province. By way of backrground, the
Government advised that on 28 May 2001 a warrant was issued for the arrest of Mr. Ernazarov, who
evaded prosecution for nearly two years. The Government stated that Mr. Ernazarov was a member
of an unlawful criminal organization engaged in criminal activities in the Tashkent Province
designed to undermine public safety and promote extremism and separatism with the aim of
overthrowing the Government.
118. On 19 August 2003 the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's communication of
11 June 2003 with regard to the case of Khalima Ismailova. The Government stated that on 13 May
2003 the Surhan-Darya provincial procurator's office instituted criminal proceedings relating to this
matter and that the case was being investigated on the basis of evidence of offences covered by
articles 25 and 97 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. According to the
Government's response, in the course of the investigation, a number of different possible scenarios
were considered, including that Ismailova was involved in the murder and, on 3 June 2003, she was
arrested as a suspect under article 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of
Uzbekistan and, in accordance with article 243 of the same code, she was remanded in custody on
6 June 2003. She was allegedly released from custody on 16 June 2003 as there was insufficient
evidence of her involvement in the offence in question. The Government affirmed that, from 3 June
2003, the date of her arrest, the investigative actions relating to her were conducted with the
representation of I. Toshkulov, a lawyer from the town of Termiz, and that since 9 June 2003, she
was represented by a lawyer named M. Bozorov who was assigned by her family. According to the
Government, during the course of the investigation, she never complained about any unlawful
methods being used against her. The Government stated that the allegation that Ms. Ismailova was
forced to sign a confession to the murder while in custody was unfounded. The Government advised
that the Office of the Procurator-General was monitoring the progress of the investigation.
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 38
Venezuela
Comunicación enviada
119. El 8 de octubre de 2003, ci Relator Especial enviô una comunicaciôn en reiacion con ci
trámite de aprobacion dcl proyecto de la icy orgánica dcl Tribunal Supremo de Justicia sometido a la
Asambica Nacional para su discusion definitiva. Segün los informes, existirlan multiples inquietudes
en cuanto a la constitucionalidad de aigunas de las disposiciones contenidas en ci proyecto, las
cuales, en ci caso de ser aprobadas y ejecutadas de manera inmediata, podrIan afectar de manera
negativa la independencia e integridad dcl sistema judicial venezolano. Tales disposiciones estarlan
relacionadas con ci aumento dcl nümero de magistrados dcl tribunal supremo; ci otorgamiento de
facuitades para que la Asambica Nacional por mayorIa absoluta pueda aumentar o disminuir ci
nümero de magistrados de las salas dci Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, asI como la facuitad para que
dicha corporaciôn pueda decretar, por simple mayorIa, la nulidad dci nombramiento de magistrados
dci Tribunal Supremo de Justicia. Asimismo, se habrIa expresado preocupaciôn en reiacion con los
hechos ocurridos ci 23 de septiembre de 2003 en la sede de la Corte Primera de lo Contencioso
Administrativo. Dc acuerdo con las informaciones recibidas, funcionarios de la Direcciôn de los
servicios de intehgencia y prevenciôn dci Ministerio de Relaciones Jnteriores y Justicia, portando
armas de alto calibre, habrIan ailanado y ocupado por más de seis horas la sede de la Corte Primera,
con base en una orden judicial emitida contra uno de sus funcionarios por ci presunto delito de
portaciôn ilegItima de documentos judiciales. Sc alega que este hecho podrIa constituir una reacciôn
ante aigunas decisiones de la Corte Primera adversas al Gobierno, en casos tales como los de la
Militarizac ion c /c la ciudad c/c Caracas, ci 2 de diciembre de 2002; ci caso Policia Mctropolitana, ci
13 de diciembre de 2002; ci caso UNAPETROL, ci 12 dejuiio de 2002 y ci casoMédicos cubanos,
ci 21 de agosto de 2003, decisiones ante las cuales ci Ejecutivo habrIa asumido una posiciôn poiltica
encaminada a descalificar a la Corte y ilamar pübiicamente al desacato de sus decisiones e irrespeto
de sus magistrados.
Viet Nam
Communications to the Government
120. On 8 January 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders regarding
Nguyen Khac Toan. According to the information received, on 20 December 2002 Nguyen Khac
Toan was sentenced to 12 years in prison and to three years probationary detention by the People's
Court in Hanoi. According to the information received, Mr. Nguyen's conviction and sentencing
might be related to the assistance he gave to farmers' representatives in drafting petitions to the
National Assembly and to the Government protesting against State confiscation of land and for
sharing information about these demonstrations and protests, via the Internet, with Vietnamese
human rights groups overseas.It was reported that Mr. Nguyen was charged with “espionage”
(article 80 of the Vietnamese Criminal Code). The trial was reportedly closed to the public.
According to the information received, his lawyer, Tran Lam, was only able to meet his client twice
before the trial and he was not allowed to speak to him in private. Nguyen Khac Taon is detained in
Thanh Liet Prison near Hanoi.
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 39
Communications from the Government
121. On 12 March 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteurs' joint urgent appeal
of 8 January 2003 and stated that Mr. Nguyen Khac Toan was arrested because of his acts of
espionage which violated the very national security of Viet Nam and was not at all related to the
assistance he gave to farmers' representatives in drafting petitions to the National Assembly and to
the Government. The Government further advised that Mr. Nguyen's trial was held publicly on
20 December 2002 by the Hanoi People's Court and he was fully guaranteed his rights to a legal
defence of his choice.
Yemen
Communications to the Government
122. On 23 May 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication regarding the explosion that
occurred on 14 May 2003 in a courtroom in Ibb causing injuries to Judge ilizam Mohammed
Mufadhal. According to the information received, the explosion occurred at the same court where
Mr. Abed Abdulrazzak Kamel was sentenced to death on 10 May for the murder of three doctors.
However, it does not appear that this attack is linked to Judge Mufadhal as he was not the presiding
judge. On 14 May Judge Mufadhal was reviewing a number of cases when family members
connected to one case entered the court and requested that their case be reviewed on that day. Judge
Mufadhal refused to reschedule the case that was set to be heard the week after. Five minutes later
the explosion occurred. The judge is said to be in relatively stable condition in hospital. A number of
people are reported to have been arrested.
Communications from the Government
123. On 12 December 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's communication
of 23 May 2003 and stated that the explosion was an act of sabotage and a criminal act designed to
disturb security and stability in general and that the independence of the judiciary was not a target.
The Attorney-General is canying out an inquiry and some individuals have been arrested and further
investigations are ongoing. Inquiries with security agents have resulted in providing more security
and protection for the courthouse. In addition, more measures have been taken to ensure security in
all courts in the Republic and to provide lawyers with a secure environment so that they are not
disturbed or influenced in any way.
Zimbabwe
Communications to the Government
124. On 17 October 2003 the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
regarding an alleged attack against Beatrice Mtetwa, a council member of the Law Society of
Zimbabwe, who frequently takes up human rights cases, including some involving the freedom of
the press. According to the information received, on 1 October 2003, an attempt was allegedly made
to break into Ms. Mtetwa's car and on 12 October 2003, Ms. Mtetwa was allegedly attacked in her
car and had a number of personal items stolen. She reportedly called the police about the robbery.
On their arrival, the police allegedly accused her of driving while being intoxicated with alcohol and
E/CN. 4/2004/6 0/Add. 1
Page 40
reportedly took her to Borrowdale Police Station. According to the information received, on the way
to the police station Ms. Mtetwa was allegedly beaten by the officers. For three hours while in
custody at the police station, she was reportedly also continuously beaten. On 16 October 2003,
Ms. Mtetwa reportedly returned to the police station and presented her written statement relating to
her charge of assault against the officer in charge. Concern has been expressed that Ms. Mtetwa may
have been targeted on account of her human rights work.
Communications from the Government
125. On 25 November 2003, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's communcation
of 17 October 2003 and advised that according to a letter written by the Police Commissioner,
Ms. Mtetwa arrived at the police station alleging a potential car jacking but this was apparently not
supported by other witnesses' statements. Further, the police claim that Ms. Mtetwa acted in a
hostile and possibly intoxicated manner and allegedly assaulted a police officer. According to the
police, this police officer pressed charges and an ongoing internal investigation was immediately
conducted to establish the circumstances and manner in which the officer handled the matter. The
Police Commissioner gave assurances that if a member of the police force has acted outside the
bounds of the law there is the possibility of a criminal prosecution or an internal disciplinary trial,
possibly resulting in a dismissal.
Press releases
126. On 19 February 2003 the Special Rapporteur issued a press release to express concern over
the arrest and detention of another judge in Zimbabwe. On 17 February, Justice Benjamin Paradza
was arrested and charged with an alleged obstruction of justice and released on bail. In January
2003, soon after Justice Paradza delivered his judgement on the Harare Mayor Elias Mudzuri case,
ordering his release, he was intimidated and threatened with reprisal by police intelligence officers.
The Government is reported to have alleged that Justice Paradza had attempted to influence a fellow
judge in a case involving an application for the release of a passport of an accused in a murder trial.
Last September 2002, anotherjudge, retired Judge Blackie was arrested and detained and
subsequently charged with obstruction of justice. Prior to his retirement, Judge Blackie had
convicted and sentenced the country's Minister of Justice to three months' imprisonment for
contempt of court. The Government alleged that Judge Blackie had delivered a judgement quashing
an appeal against a jail term imposed on a white woman without concurring with the otherjudge
who sat on the appeal with him. What is common and so blatant about the alleged charges against
Justice Paradza and retired Judge Blackie is that fellow judges are used as prime witnesses to prove
those charges.While judges are not above the law, subjecting them to arrest and detention in such
humiliating circumstances is tantamount to intimidation of the gravest kind. This leaves a chilling
effect on the independence of the judiciary. This latest development is but one in a series of
institutional and personal attacks on the judiciary and its independent judges over the past two years,
which have resulted in the resignations of several senior judges and which have left Zimbabwe's rule
of law in tatters. When judges can be set against one another, then intimidated with arrest, detention
and criminal prosecution there is no hope for the rule of law, which is the cornerstone of democracy.
It paves the way for governmental lawlessness.
127. On 3 July 2003, the Special Rapporteur issued a press release to welcome the withdrawal of
all criminal charges against retired Judge Fergus Blackie by the Public Prosecutor in Zimbabwe.
This is a step in the right direction towards respect for the independence of the judiciary and the rule
of law in Zimbabwe. The Special Rapporteur urged the Public Prosecutor similarly to withdraw the
E/CN.4/2004/60/Add. 1
Page 41
criminal charge preferred against Justice Benjamin Paradza on 18 February 2003 for alleged
obstruction of justice.
Palestinian Authority
Communications to the Government
128. On 6 June 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding Sergeant Rani Darwish
Khalil Shaqqura, a member of the Palestinian security services from Jabalya refugee camp in the
Gaza Strip, who was reportedly sentenced to death by firing squad on 17 May 2003 by a special
military court. It is reported that his death sentence must be approved by President Yasser Arafat,
after which he could be executed at any time. According to the information received, Mr. Shaqqura
was found guilty of the murder on 15 April 2003 of another member of the Palestinian security
services, Captain Hani ‘Atiya al-Madhoun. It appears there was no legal basis for convening a
military court, since such courts usually hear cases of security service employees in connection with
offences committed during or as part of their work However, in this case, the killing was not carried
out in the context of Mr. Shaqqura's work in the security services. It was reported that the charge
sheet was not presented to the prosecutor until the court reconvened for the second time, on
26 April, and did not bear the signature and stamp of the civilian general prosecutor who had carried
out the investigation, making it invalid. The defence lawyer reportedly objected to these and other
irregularities. Nevertheless, the court overruled all the points he raised and the defence lawyer
reportedly withdrew from the case in protest. Consequently, the court allegedly appointed two
security officers to act as defence lawyers for Mr. Shaqqura. However, despite their law degree they
are reportedly not registered with the Bar Association and do not practise law. They allegedly
received the documents relating to the case only hours before the hearing. According to reports, no
witnesses were called to testify in Mr. Shaqqura's defence.
Download Attachments:
