Site icon Iran Human Rights Documentation Center

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:

Exit mobile version