General Assembly - OHCHR

Loading...

United Nations

General Assembly

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1 Distr.: General 28 February 2011 English/French/Spanish only

Human Rights Council Sixteenth session Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya Addendum

Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received*

* The present document is being circulated in the languages of submission only, as it greatly exceeds the word limitations currently imposed by the relevant General Assembly resolutions.

GE.11-11427

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

Contents

Introduction.............................................................................................................

2

Paragraphs

Page

1–3

5

Algeria

................................................................................................................

4–33

5

Angola

................................................................................................................

34–41

9

Argentina ................................................................................................................

42–74

10

Austria

................................................................................................................

75–89

15

Bahrain

................................................................................................................

90–210

16

Bangladesh ..............................................................................................................

211–231

34

Brazil

................................................................................................................

232–242

37

Bulgaria ................................................................................................................

243–265

39

Burundi ................................................................................................................

266–270

41

Cambodia ................................................................................................................

271–293

41

Cameroon ................................................................................................................

294–307

45

Canada

................................................................................................................

308–335

47

Chile

................................................................................................................

336–346

50

China

................................................................................................................

347–469

52

Colombia ................................................................................................................

470–632

67

Cuba

................................................................................................................

633–684

88

Democratic Republic of Congo...............................................................................

685–748

95

Ecuador ................................................................................................................

749–769

104

El Salvador..............................................................................................................

770–806

106

Ethiopia ................................................................................................................

807–809

112

France

................................................................................................................

810–851

112

Gambia

................................................................................................................

852–859

117

Georgia

................................................................................................................

860–888

118

Guatemala ...............................................................................................................

889–996

122

Honduras ................................................................................................................

997–1023

136

Hungary ................................................................................................................

1024–1055

141

India

................................................................................................................

1056–1156

145

Indonesia ................................................................................................................

1157–1164

157

Iran (Islamic Republic of) .......................................................................................

1165–1282

158

Iraq

................................................................................................................

1283–1289

173

Israel

................................................................................................................

1290–1347

174

Italy

................................................................................................................

1348–1365

183

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

Jamaica

................................................................................................................

1366–1372

185

Jordan

................................................................................................................

1373–1387

186

Kazakhstan ..............................................................................................................

1388–1403

188

Kenya

................................................................................................................

1404–1412

190

Kuwait

................................................................................................................

1413–1421

191

Kyrgyz Republic .....................................................................................................

1422–1475

192

Lebanon ................................................................................................................

1476–1488

199

Malawi

................................................................................................................

1489–1497

201

Maldives ................................................................................................................

1498–1513

202

Mauritania ...............................................................................................................

1514–1532

205

Mexico

................................................................................................................

1533–1745

207

Moldova (Republic of) ............................................................................................

1746–1778

237

Morocco ................................................................................................................

1779–1800

241

Nepal

................................................................................................................

1801–1820

244

Nicaragua ................................................................................................................

1821–1856

247

Nigeria

................................................................................................................

1857–1862

250

Occupied Palestinian Territories .............................................................................

1863–1872

251

Oman

................................................................................................................

1873–1883

252

Panama

................................................................................................................

1884–1914

254

Peru

................................................................................................................

1915–1926

259

Philippines...............................................................................................................

1927–1980

261

Republic of Korea ...................................................................................................

1981–2017

268

Russian Federation ..................................................................................................

2018–2067

276

Rwanda ................................................................................................................

2068–2087

283

Saudi Arabia............................................................................................................

2088–2107

286

Serbia

................................................................................................................

2108–2116

288

Sri Lanka ................................................................................................................

2117–2127

289

Sudan

................................................................................................................

2128–2139

291

Syrian Arab Republic..............................................................................................

2140–2208

293

Tajikistan ................................................................................................................

2209–2220

304

Tanzania (United Republic of) ................................................................................

2221–2227

306

Thailand ................................................................................................................

2228–2243

307

Tunisia

................................................................................................................

2244–2283

309

Turkey

................................................................................................................

2284–2291

316

Turkmenistan ..........................................................................................................

2292–2302

317

Uganda

2303–2310

318

................................................................................................................

3

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

Ukraine

4

................................................................................................................

2311–2331

320

United Arab Emirates..............................................................................................

2332–2346

323

Uzbekistan...............................................................................................................

2347–2404

325

Vanuatu ................................................................................................................

2405–2416

332

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)........................................................................

2417–2484

333

Viet Nam ................................................................................................................

2485–2511

344

Zimbabwe................................................................................................................

2512–2550

348

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

Introduction 1. The present document is submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the situation on human rights defenders, Ms Margaret Sekaggya, to the Human Rights Council, pursuant to resolutions 5/1 and 7/8 of the Human rights Council. The document provides summaries of the communications on specific cases addressed by the Special Rapporteur to States, as well as summaries of the replies by States received and their observations thereon. 2. The cases raised by the Special Rapporteur in this addendum include communications sent between 11 December 2009 and 8 December 2010. The addendum contains summaries of responses received from States until 7 February 2011. Although received before 7 February 2011, few replies are not included in the present report because translation is awaited. Most of the responses by States refer to cases raised by the Special Rapporteur during the period December 2009 to December 2010; however, some of the responses are to cases addressed by her in earlier reporting periods. While the summaries of these responses are included in this report, the summaries of the cases to which they refer will be found in the Special Rapporteur’s reports from preceding years (see A/HRC/7/28/Add.1, A/HRC/10/12/Add. 1 and A/HRC/13/22/Add. 1 covering the previous three years). 3. For ease of reference, cases have been grouped by country, with countries listed alphabetically according to their names in English.

Algeria Appel urgent 4. Le 19 avril 2010, la Rapporteuse spéciale, conjointement avec le Président du Groupe de Travail sur les Disparitions Forcées ou Involontaires et le Rapporteur spécial sur la promotion et la protection du droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression, a envoyé un appel urgent concernant les faits suivants : le dimanche 11 avril 2010, de nombreuses familles de disparus, arborant des pancartes, des photos de disparus ainsi que des foulards, se seraient réunies devant le Ministère de la justice pour manifester leur colère suite aux déclarations alléguées du Président de la Commission Nationale Consultative pour la Promotion et la Protection des Droits de l’Homme (CNCPPDH), selon lesquelles l’établissement de la vérité sur le sort des disparus serait irréalisable. Il a également été rapporté que trois membres de l’organisation non-gouvernementale SOS Disparu(e)s auraient essayé d’accéder au Ministère pour réitérer une demande d’audience et transmettre le message des familles demandant l’ouverture d’enquêtes effectives sur le sort des disparus, mais elles auraient été interceptées à l’entrée du bâtiment par un policier de service et des agents en civils qui leur auraient interdit de passer et leur auraient ordonné de déposer les photos et le foulard de l’association, ce qu’ils auraient refusé de faire. Ensuite, de nombreux agents en civil se seraient introduits parmi les manifestants et auraient commencé à disperser brutalement la foule, malmenant et bousculant les femmes et les personnes âgées présentes dans le rassemblement. 5. Des craintes ont été exprimées quant à l’usage excessif de la force par les forces de l’ordre contre ces manifestants pacifiques, et ce dans l’exercice de leur droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression et à la liberté de rassemblement pacifique.

5

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

Réponse du Gouvernement 6. Dans une lettre en date du 25 mai 2010, le Gouvernement a indiqué que dans la matinée du 11 avril 2010, un groupe de plusieurs personnes, abordant pancartes et photos, s'est regroupé devant le siège du Ministère de la Justice. 7. Ce rassemblement a été canalisé par les fonctionnaires chargés de l'ordre public jusqu'au moment où le groupe a investi la voie publique mitoyenne du Ministère, occasionnant un encombrement de la circulation et bloquant ainsi, toutes les voies de communication des alentours. 8. Les agents de l'ordre public ont alors invité les personnes ainsi regroupées à se disperser. Ce que la majorité d'entre eux a finalement accepté, sauf un petit groupe de quelques personnes qui ont persisté dans leur attitude. 9. Par contre et contrairement à ce qui à été allégué, les personnes qui se sont regroupées devant le Ministère n'ont jamais subi de mauvais traitements de la part des agents de l'ordre public lesquels, dans un premier temps, les ont simplement invités à se disperser puis, devant le refus d'obtempérer, ont procédé à leur dispersion. 10. Il convient de noter, par ailleurs, qu'aucune personne prétendant avoir subi une quelconque violence n'a déposé de plainte devant quelque autorité que ce soit. C'est pourquoi, aucune enquête n'a été ouverte à ce sujet. 11. Il y a lieu de souligner, enfin, que la question des disparus a fait l'objet d'un mémorandum de référence adressé par le Gouvernement algérien aux Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies aux Droits de l'Homme, relatif à l'irrecevabilité des communications introduites devant le Comité des droits de l'homme, en rapport avec la mise en œuvre de la charte pour la paix et la réconciliation nationale.

Lettre d’allégation 12. Le 11 mai 2010, la Rapporteuse spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur spécial sur la promotion et la protection du droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression, a envoyé une lettre d’allégation concernant la situation de MM. Mustapha Benfodil, Adlane Meddi, Saïd Khatibi et Hakim Addad. MM. Benfodil, Meddi et Khatibi sont les animateurs du groupe « Bezzzef » qui dénonce les atteintes aux libertés en Algérie à travers des actions publiques pacifiques et son réseau social sur internet. M. Addad est le Secrétaire général du Rassemblement Action Jeunesse (RAJ), une association socioculturelle ayant pour objectifs la sensibilisation et la mobilisation des jeunes aux problèmes sociaux, ainsi que la promotion d’activités culturelles et des droits de l’homme. 13. Selon les informations reçues, le 3 mai 2010, à l'occasion de la Journée mondiale de la liberté de presse, un rassemblement pacifique aurait été organisé par Bezzzef devant les locaux de la télévision nationale (Entreprise nationale de télévision-ENTV) à Alger afin de revendiquer le droit à la liberté d'expression en Algérie. 14. MM. Benfodil, Meddi, Khatib et Addad auraient été arrêtés par la police pour « attroupement non autorisé » et transférés au commissariat de police du boulevard des Martyrs à Alger. Ils auraient été interrogés au sujet du rassemblement avant d’être libérés le même jour. 15. Des craintes ont été exprimées quant au fait que les arrestations de Messieurs Benfodil, Meddi, Khatib et Addad soient liées à leurs activités non violentes de promotion et de protection des droits de l’homme.

6

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

Réponse du Gouvernement 16. Dans une lettre en date du 5 octobre 2010, le Gouvernement a informé que le 3 mai 2010, est apparu, sur un site internet un communiqué intitulé « libérons L’ENTV », appelant une manifestation devant l'entreprise nationale de la télévision algérienne. 17. Le même jour, un attroupement devant le siège de cette entreprise a commencé à se constituer mené per trois personnes, en l'occurrence MM. Benfodil Mustapha, Meddi Adlane et Addad Hakim. 18. Pour éviter tout dérapage, les agents de la police judiciaire ont interpellé les sus nommés pour vérification d'identité et examen de situation. Le jour même, ils ont été libérés. 19.

Aucune poursuite judiciaire n'a été exercée contre ces personnes.

20. De la même façon, aucune plainte n'a été déposée par ces personnes devant la Justice, pour quelque motif que ce soit.

Lettre d’allégation 21. Le 24 août 2010, la Rapporteuse spéciale, conjointement avec le PrésidentRapporteur du Groupe de Travail sur les Disparitions Forcées ou Involontaires, le Rapporteur spécial sur la promotion et la protection du droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression et le Rapporteur spécial sur la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants, a envoyé une lettre d’allégation concernant l’interdiction imposée aux mères de disparu(e)s de se réunir pacifiquement et la répression brutale d’une manifestation pacifique. 22. Selon les informations reçues, dans la matinée du 4 août 2010, un large groupe de gendarmes et de policiers auraient barré l’accès à la place Addis Abeba à Alger, siège de la Commission nationale consultative de promotion et de protection des droits de l’homme, dans le but d’empêcher des mères de disparu(e)s de se rassembler pacifiquement devant cette instance, comme elles le font tous les mercredis depuis le 2 août 1998. 23. Une semaine plus tard, le 11 août 2010, une quarantaine de mères de disparu(e)s et de sympathisants auraient tenté de se réunir à nouveau. Des policiers et gendarmes auraient alors fait usage de la force pour réprimer cette manifestation. M. Slimane Hamitouche aurait été jeté à terre par plusieurs policiers et aurait reçu de leur part des coups de poings à la tête et des coups de pieds. Mme Nassera Dutour aurait également été frappée par plusieurs policiers et souffrirait aujourd’hui de courbatures et d’hématomes sur les bras et les jambes. Me Amine Sidhoum, qui venait au secours de Mme Nassera Dutour, aurait été projetée à terre avec force et rouée de coups. Mmes El Boathie et Lekhal auraient été trainées par terre par leur foulard. Cette dernière, asthmatique et souffrant de problèmes de thyroïde, se serait évanouie et aurait été transportée à l’hôpital. M. Ferhati Hacène se serait également évanoui lors de cette répression brutale et aurait eu de violents maux de tête le lendemain. D’autres avocats présents, ainsi que des militants de la Ligue algérienne des droits de l’homme, auraient été bousculés. Plusieurs personnes, dont un père de disparu de 82 ans, auraient été détenues pendant près d’une heure dans un camion où ils avaient des difficultés à respirer du fait de la chaleur étouffante. 24. Le 18 août 2010, une nouvelle tentative de rassemblement par un groupe de mères de disparu(e)s et de sympathisants aurait eu lieu, en vain, la police contraignant les participants à monter dans un bus afin qu’ils quittent le lieu de rassemblement.

7

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

25. De sérieuses craintes ont été exprimées quant au fait que l’interdiction imposée aux mères de disparu(e)s de se réunir pacifiquement, ainsi que l’usage excessif de la force contre des manifestants pacifiques, soient liées à leurs activités légitimes de défense des droits de l’homme, en l’occurrence leur travail visant à réclamer la vérité, la justice et une réparation adéquate.

Réponse du Gouvernement 26. Dans une lettre en date du 1er décembre 2010, le Gouvernement a indiqué que lors du rassemblement du 11 août 2010, quatre personnes virulentes ont été interpellées par les forces de police pour les vérifications d'usages, sans pour autant faire l'objet de violences. Il s'agit des nommés Melis Arab, Amine Kellou, Imad Boubekeri et Moh Slimane Hamitouche. Ce dernier, qui a été également interpellé au cours des rassemblements des 4 et 18 août, pour son comportement récalcitrant et hostile envers les agents de l'ordre public, n'a fait l'objet d'aucune violence, avant d'être relaxé sur instruction de M. le Procureur de la République de céans, préalablement avisé par les services de police. 27. Les services de la sûreté n'ont, à aucun moment, réprimé les regroupements des mères des disparus. L'intervention des policiers qui ont participé aux services de l'ordre, s'est limitée à l'application des moyens légaux en leur qualité de force publique investie des missions de rétablissement de l'ordre dans le cadre de la loi en vigueur. Ils se sont acquittés de leur travail avec une certaine fermeté, mais en faisant preuve de beaucoup de doigté et de tact surtout à l'égard des femmes et des personnes âgées. 28. Aussi, le fait de faire appel au personnel féminin et leurs équipes relevant des services de la sécurité publique et non pas des éléments des unités républicaines de sécurité, habituellement équipés de moyens d'intervention, dénote la vigilance des services de la sûreté et l'assouplissement des mesures d'intervention entreprises envers les protestataires, préférant la canalisation du groupe, que de recourir à d'autres moyens, en raison de la maitrise de la situation au regard du nombre réduit de personnes. Le résultat qu'il n'ait été enregistré aucun dépôt de plaintes ou d'évacuation en direction d'hôpitaux en raison de l'absence de tout cas de blessure en témoigne. 29. Il est à signaler que les personnes ayant introduit lesdites allégations, à savoir Nacera Dultour, El Boathie Lekhal, Amine Sidhoum et Ferhati Hàcène, considérées comme membres actifs de la pseudo association « SOS Disparus », entité qui n'a aucune existence juridique, veulent nuire à la réputation des services de sécurité d'une part, et tenter de faire entendre leur « cause » en déclin depuis la promulgation des dispositions de la Charte pour la paix et la Réconciliation nationale. 30. La Gendarmerie nationale n’a mis en place aucun dispositif, durant les manifestations des familles de disparus devant le siège de la Commission Nationale Consultative de Promotion et de Protection des Droits de l'Homme, les 4, 11 et 18 août 2010. Ce que confirme également la Direction général de la Sûreté Nationale, qui indique qu'il s'agit de surcroît d'un secteur intra-muros, du ressort exclusif des attributions des services de police. 31. De ce qui précède, il ressort que ces allégations démontrent l'échec et le discrédit des instigateurs de cette démarche inopportune, ayant pour objectif de nuire la réputation des services de sécurité d'une part, et de tenter de faire entendre leur « voix » en déclin et ayant perdu toute crédibilité et ce, depuis la promulgation des dispositions de la Charte pour la paix et la Réconciliation nationale. 32. Enfin, il est à signaler que la base légale ayant prévalu à l'interdiction des rassemblements des familles de disparus devant le siège de la Commission Nationale des droits de l'homme, est dictée par les dispositions de la loi n° 91-19 du 2 décembre 1991, 8

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

relatives aux réunions et manifestations publiques, notamment dans son article 19 qui stipule que « Toute manifestation faite sans déclaration… est considérée comme attroupement ».

Observations 33. La Rapporteuse spéciale remercie le Gouvernement de ses réponses mais regrette, au moment de la finalisation du présent rapport, l’absence de réponse aux communications en date du 8 janvier 2009, 7 novembre 2008, 26 mai 2008 et 6 mars 2007. Elle considère les réponses à ses communications comme partie intégrante de la coopération des gouvernements avec son mandat. Elle exhorte le Gouvernement à répondre au plus vite aux craintes exprimées dans celles-ci, notamment en fournissant des informations précises sur les enquêtes menées afin de traduire en justice les auteurs des faits et les mesures de protection prises pour assurer l’intégrité physique et mentale des défenseurs et de leurs familles.

Angola Urgent appeal 34. On 27 January 2010, the Special Rapporteur, together with the ChairpersonRapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, sent an urgent appeal concerning Mr. Belchior Lanso Tati, Mr. Francisco Luemba, Mr. Raul Tati, Mr. Pedro Fuca, Chevron employee, and Mr. Zefarino Pauti, a former police officer. Mr. Lanso Tati is an economist and university professor. Mr. Luemba is a lawyer and writer. He has defended several persons accused of crimes against the security of the state and has published a book in 2008 on the recent history of the Cabinda Province, which was critical of the government. Mr. Raul Tati is a catholic priest and the former Chair of the Catholic Church’s Justice and Peace Commission in the Cabinda Province, which documented and denounced alleged human rights abuses by the military in the interior of the Cabinda Province. The three men were also members of the “Civic Association of Cabinda”, “Mpalabanda”. This organization was working on the human rights situation in the Cabinda Province until its judicial ban in 2006 following allegations that it was carrying out political activities and inciting violence. A joint urgent appeal was sent on 16 August 2006 regarding the ban of “Mpalabanda” by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the then Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders. 35. According to the information received, Mr. Lanso Tati, Mr. Raul Tati, and Mr. Luemba were reportedly arrested by agents of the criminal investigation police on 13 or 14, 16 and 17 January 2010 respectively. They have not been formally charged, but it is reported that they are accused of crimes against the security of the state. They were initially detained in Cadeia civil prison, and have been transferred to Yabi prison, where they have access to legal counsel. 36. Further details about the exact dates and circumstances of the arrest and the places of detention of Mr. Pedro Fuca and Mr. Zefarino Pauti are not known. It is alleged that further individuals, among them Mr. Raul Danda, MEP for UNITA, Mr. Marcos Mavungo, human rights activist, Mr. Jorge Casimiro Congo, priest, Mr. Martinho Nombo, lawyer, and Mr. Agostinho Chicaia, engineer, also appear on arrest lists of Angolan authorities.

9

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

37. Mr. José Manuel Gimbi, correspondent of Voice of America in Cabinda, has allegedly been warned by a senior police official that his life was at risk. He was told that the authorities considered him to be a “dangerous person who has damaged Angola’s image”. It is alleged that this threat follows Mr. Gimbi’s recent reports on arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders in Cabinda. 38. The attack of 8 January 2010, by separatist rebels against the Togolese national football team in the framework of the 2010 Africa Cup of Nations is reportedly used to justify these arrests and the crackdown on government critics and human rights defenders working on the situation in Cabinda. Human rights defenders have also denounced that they are being subjected to travel restrictions and having their passports confiscated. 39. Mr. Chicaia was the subject of an allegation letter sent by the then Special Representative of the Secretary General on the situation of human rights defenders on 29 September 2006. We acknowledge receipt of the reply received from the Government on 10 October 2006. 40. Concern was expressed that the arrests that were reported to have been carried out already, or were reportedly imminent and the detention of the abovementioned persons and the threats against Mr. Gimbi might be directly related to their work in defense of human rights and in particular the non-violent exercise of their right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Observations 41. The Special Rapporteur regrets that at the time of the finalization of this report, the Government had not transmitted a reply to her communication of 27 January 2010. Regret is also expressed that the Government has not responded to previous communications sent on 14 August 2007, 30 November 2006, 16 August 2006 and 5 April 2006. She considers response to her communication as an important part of cooperation by Governments with her mandate and urges the Government to respond to the concerns raised by her.

Argentina Llamamiento urgente 42. El 21 de enero de 2010, la Relatora Especial sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos humanos envió un llamamiento urgente señalando a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el robo a la oficina de la Secretaría de Derechos Humanos de la Provincia de Buenos Aires y el ataque contra su personal, incluyendo a la Sra. Sara Derotier de Cobacho, titular de la Secretaría. 43. La oficina de la Secretaria de Derechos Humanos de la Provincia de Buenos Aires promueve los principios de justicia, memoria y verdad en Argentina. Es un organismo oficial con el mandato de iniciar procesos judiciales federales y de juzgar a aquellos sospechosos de haber cometido atrocidades y violaciones de los derechos humanos. La oficina de la Secretaría acepta denuncias, participa en casos legales, y colabora en los Juicios por la Verdad. También administra el Registro Único de la Verdad, una base de datos que consolida todos los datos sobre violaciones de los derechos humanos cometidos durante la dictadura militar en Argentina. De esta manera, la oficina de la Secretaria juega un papel importante en la lucha contra la impunidad en Argentina. 44. Según las informaciones recibidas, el día 30 de diciembre de 2009, a las aproximadamente 5.15 horas de la tarde, dos hombres armados habrían entrado a la oficina 10

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

de la Secretaria de Derechos Humanos de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Al ingresar se habrían encontrado con la Sra. Sara Derotier de Cobacho y siete otras personas, quienes habrían sido atacadas y amenazadas con armas. Los hombres habrían robado material relacionado con crímenes contra lesa humanidad cometidos durante la dictadura militar en Argentina. Asimismo, los hombres se habrían llevado materiales relacionados con denuncias recibidas desde hace un mes por la Secretaría sobre delitos que habrían implicado la policía provincial de Buenos Aires. Además de este material legal, los hombres se habrían robado el ordenador de la Sra. Derotier de Cobacho, que habría contenido material relacionado con actuales investigaciones en contra de la policía provincial, teléfonos móviles, así como casi ocho mil pesos. 45. Después del incidente, las víctimas del ataque habrían identificado a uno de los hombres involucrados el robado. Dicho hombre habría sido identificado como un ex-agente de la Policía provincial de Buenos Aires. El día 1 de enero de 2010, esta persona habría sido detenida en su hogar, donde se habría descubierto el dinero robado de la oficina. 46. El día 5 de enero de 2010, el ordenador personal de la Sra. Sara Derotier de Cobacho habría sido encontrado satisfactoriamente. Sin embargo, hasta la fecha el material en relación con las investigaciones sobre los crímenes cometidos durante la dictadura militar, no habría sido recuperado. 47. Se expresó temor que el robo a la oficina de la Secretaría de Derechos Humanos de la Provincia de Buenos Aires y el ataque contra su personal podrían haber estado relacionados con las actividades que ellos realizaban para promover y defender los derechos de la gente de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Se expresó una profunda preocupación por la integridad física y psicológica de todos los defensores de los derechos humanos en Argentina. 48. The Special Rapporteur regrets that at the time of the finalization of this report, the Government had not transmitted a reply to her communication of 27 January 2010. Regret is also expressed that the Government has not responded to previous communications sent on 14 August 2007, 30 November 2006, 16 August 2006 and 5 April 2006. She considers response to her communication as an important part of cooperation by Governments with her mandate and urges the Government to respond to the concerns raised by her.

Respuesta del Gobierno 49. En dos cartas fechadas el 2 de febrero de 2010 y 1 de junio de 2010, el Gobierno respondió al llamamiento urgente con fecha de 21 de enero de 2010. 50. El día 30 de diciembre pasado siendo las 17 y 30 aproximadamente, se presentan en la sede central de la Secretaría de Derechos Humanos de la Provincia de Buenos Aires dos hombres con intenciones de dar un presente a la Sra. Secretaría, Sara Cobacho. En el momento que el recepcionista se disponía a realizar la consulta vía interno telefónico ambas personas sacan las armas una sube la escalera y la otra se dirige a sector de la cocina para reducir a las personas que se encontraban allí. En ese momento se encontraban 7 empleados de la dependencia más dos personas ajeras que habían pasado a saludar dada la proximidad del fin de año. 51. Los sujetos se dirigieron al despacho de la Sra. Secretaría donde ubicaron a todos los presentes precintándoles las muñecas, acto seguido les quitaron los teléfonos celulares. Se movían con soltura y con conocimiento de lo que hacían. Sabían la existencia de una caja fuerte de la que pedían las llaves. Profirieron insultos y amenazaron con usar las armas. Sustrajeron la PC portátil de la Secretaria y la cámara fotográfica. Luego se retiraron llevándose todo lo que había en la caja de seguridad. En este punto cabe destacar que en la misma no había dinero pero sí información vinculada a la última dictadura militar y a 11

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

delitos institucionales de alta significación para el cumplimiento de los objetivos de esta Secretaría de Derechos Humanos. 52. Lo descrito hasta aquí, hace creer que los sujetos que perpetraron el hecho no se manejaban solos. Desconocemos hasta el momento cuantas personas pueden estar involucradas. Al día de la fecha, se ha detenido a una sola persona, que ha resultado ser ex miembro de la Policía de la Provincia de Buenos Aires y que ha sido uno de los ejecutores. Sin perjuicio de lo hasta aquí expuesto, es de destacar que se ha recuperada gran cantidad de las cosas sustraídas aunque los teléfonos celulares no fueron devuelto y aun no se ha dado con su localización. Asimismo, cabe poner de relieve que la información que contenían la PC portátil y la cámara fotográfica sustraída fue borrada. 53. La Investigación judicial es llevada adelante por la Unidad Funcional de Instrucción y Juicio Nº 3 del departamento Judicial de la Plata*. También es de destacar que los Subsecretarios de Seguridad y de Investigación Criminal dependientes del Ministerio de Seguridad de la Provincia de Buenos Aires han estado desde el primer momento a disposición de esta dependencia. El Proceso se encuentra en pleno trámite y aun no hay más novedades sobre el resto de los responsables del hecho. 54. A partir del hecho se dispuso custodia policial en la Sede Central de esta Secretaría de Derechos Humanos y se están tomando medidas de seguridad más intensas. 55. En cuanto a las investigaciones y diligencias judiciales iniciadas en relación con el caso, habiendo pedido informe al Fiscal interviniente, se adjunta copia de la contestación. Sabrá entender que los delicados hechos de los que nos encontramos hablando requieren la mayor prudencia, por lo que esperamos que la Justicia Argentina pueda llevar adelante las acciones necesarias para dar con los responsables de estos sucesos.

Llamamiento urgente 56. El 27 de abril de 2010, la Relatora Especial sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos humanos, junto con la Relatora Especial sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados, enviaron un llamamiento urgente señalando a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el ataque que se habría producido contra el estudio jurídico de la abogada María Isabel Caccioppolis. Dicha abogada representaría al Profesor César Manuel Román, querellante en la causa por violación de los derechos humanos acontecida en 1976 contra adolescentes del Centro de Estudiantes de la Escuela Normal de Concepción del Uruguay en la provincia argentina de Entre Ríos. 57. Según las informaciones recibidas, el 8 de abril de 2010, personas desconocidas habrían ingresado por la fuerza en la oficina de la Sra. María Isabel Caccioppolis y habrían provocado importantes destrozos. Los individuos habrían robado documentos y prendido fuego a papeles y a un ordenador. Las llamas habrían alcanzado importante documentación que la abogada tenía en su poder con relación a diferentes causas por violaciones de derechos humanos. 58. La Sra. María Isabel Caccioppolis, que ya habría sido objeto de intimidaciones en el pasado, es una profesional conocida por representar a los querellantes en las causas que se tramitan por violaciones de los derechos humanos durante la dictadura militar en Concepción del Uruguay. Parece que no se trataría de un hecho aislado ya que otros estudios de abogados querellantes en las mismas causas en Paraná, capital de Entre Ríos, habrían sufrido ataques parecidos. 59. Asimismo, hechos similares habrían tenido lugar en otras partes del país durante los últimos meses. El 30 de diciembre de 2009, dos hombres armados se habrían introducido en la Secretaría de Derechos Humanos de la Provincia de Buenos Aires y habrían robado

12

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

material relacionado con crímenes de lesa humanidad cometidos durante la dictadura así como otros documentos de investigaciones sobre delitos que involucrarían a la Policía provincial. Una comunicación fue enviada por la Relatora Especial sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos humanos, el 21 de enero de 2010. 60. Se temió que el ataque contra el gabinete jurídico de la Sra. María Isabel Caccioppolis, así como contra otros estudios de abogados querellantes en las mismas y en otras causas, sean indicios de intentos de intimidación a defensores de los derechos humanos y, en particular a abogados, que intentan recabar información y defender casos sobre violaciones de derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales ante la justicia argentina.

Respuesta del Gobierno 61. En una carta fechada el 3 de agosto de 2010, el Gobierno respondió al llamamiento urgente con fecha de 27 de abril de 2010. 62. El día 8 de Abril de 2010, la Dra. María Isabel Caccioppolis se comunica personalmente con el Sr. Subsecretario de Derechos Humanos de Entre Ríos, anoticiándolo del robo e incendio de parte de su estudio jurídico en esa madrugada y que la Policía de la Provincia de Entre Ríos había tomado la denuncia de lo acontecido, estando la misma radicada en el Juzgado de Instrucción de turno a cargo del Dr. Mariano Martínez de la ciudad de Concepción del Uruguay. 63. Inmediatamente el Gobierno de Entre Ríos, dispuso por la custodia personal de la Dra. María Isabel Caccioppolis ante los sucesos acaecidos y por expreso pedido de la misma. 64. En conocimiento que el robo e incendio del estudio jurídico podría tener connotaciones relacionadas con el juicio que lleva adelante sobre la denuncia del Prof. César Román, querellante en la causa por violaciones de derechos humanos acontecidas en 1976 contra adolescentes del Centro de Estudiantes de la Escuela Normal de la Ciudad de Concepción del Uruguay, la Subsecretaría de Derechos Humanos se comunicó con el querellante quien esta radicado en la Ciudad de Mar del Plata, a quien se le ofreció custodia personal por intermedio del Subsecretario de Derechos Humanos de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. La Dra. Caccioppolis no ha presentado ninguna queja en este organismo, siendo recibida personalmente por el Sr. Ministro de Gobierno, la Secretaria de Justicia, Seguridad y Derechos Humanos, y el Sr. Jefe de la Policía de Entre Ríos, donde se le brindó todo el apoyo requerido. 65. Ni este Gobierno, ni ninguna organización de derechos humanos de Entre Ríos ha recibido denuncias sobre atentados o intimidaciones a otros abogados querellantes en la Provincia de Entre Ríos. 66. Sobre las investigaciones judiciales, la Dra. María Isabel Caccioppolis es querellante en la causa y este organismo no cuenta con información sobre las investigaciones judiciales, tomándose conocimiento que los autores del hecho fueron apresados, imputándose las autorías de los hechos y negándoseles a la excarcelación al día de la fecha.

Carta de alegaciones 67. El 1 de octubre de 2010, la Relatora Especial sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos humanos, junto con el Relator Especial sobre la promoción y la protección del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión; y el Relator Especial sobre las ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias enviaron una carta de alegaciones señalando a la 13

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el asesinato del Sr. Adams Ledesma Valenzuela en una villa de emergencia o barrio desfavorecido de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. El Sr. Ledesma, de 41 años, de nacionalidad boliviana, trabajaba como reportero del semanario comunitario Mundo Villa y preparaba la apertura del canal de televisión Mundo TV Villa, que emitiría su señal por cable a hogares de la comunidad. El Sr. Ledesma era asimismo un líder comunitario de larga trayectoria en el barrio. 68. Según las informaciones recibidas, el sábado 4 de septiembre, en la barriada 31 Bis de Retiro en Buenos Aires, el Sr. Ledesma habría recibido una llamada para ayudar a un vecino a reparar un desperfecto eléctrico, pero al salir de su casa fue asesinado. Familiares del periodista habrían sido amenazados por personas desconocidas cuando intentaban ayudarlo en el lugar de los hechos, así como durante el funeral, en ambos casos instándolos a salir de la localidad. 69. El Sr. Ledesma solía informar sobre problemas que afectaban al barrio, como las malas condiciones sanitarias y desperfectos en las vías públicas. Según informes recibidos, en junio de 2010, el Sr. Ledesma habría anunciado el lanzamiento del canal de televisión y habría adelantado que pretendía hacer periodismo de investigación para informar acerca de personajes conocidos que llegaban a comprar droga a la villa. 70. Se expresó grave preocupación por el asesinato del Sr. Adams Ledesma Valenzuela y por la posibilidad que este hecho pudiera estar relacionado con sus actividades de promoción y protección de los derechos humanos, en particular con su labor como reportero y líder comunitario en la barriada 31 Bis en Buenos Aires.

Respuesta del Gobierno 71. Mediante carta fechada el 25 de noviembre de 2010, el Gobierno respondió al llamamiento urgente con fecha de 1 de octubre de 2010. 72. El Gobierno de Argentina informa a que se investiga el suceso que tuvo lugar el día 4 de septiembre del 2010, a las 5.30 horas aproximadamente, en el interior de la Villa 31 bis de la Capital de Federal, más precisamente frente a la casa 175 de la manzana 99, en el que perdió la vida una persona de sexo masculino identificada como Adams Ledezma Valenzuela, a raíz de lesiones por arma blanca (cuchillo) en cuello y abdomen hemorragia interna y externa, que habrían sido producidas por el accionar de una persona quien para ello habría utilizado un cuchillo de aproximadamente 14 cm de largo y punta filosa. 73. Se llevó a cabo una investigación y una persona fue arrestada por el asesinato del Sr. Adams Ledezma Valenzuela.

Observaciones 74. La Relatora Especial agradece al Gobierno de Argentina las respuestas proporcionadas a sus comunicaciones enviadas durante el periodo de este informe. La Relatora Especial se muestra preocupada por los actos de intimidación a defensores de los derechos humanos, en particular a abogados y funcionarios públicos, que intentan recabar información y defender casos sobre violaciones de derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales ocurridos durante el periodo de dictadura militar en Argentina. La Relatora Especial toma nota de de las medidas de seguridad adicionales adoptadas por el Gobierno para asegurar la integridad física y psicológica de defensores amenazados. En este sentido, insta al Gobernó a continuar con sus esfuerzos para garantizar un ambiente seguro que permita a los defensores de los derechos humanos llevar a cabo su trabajo.

14

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

Austria Urgent appeal 75. On 1 November 2010, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, sent an urgent appeal regarding an alleged plan to assassinate Mr. Farid Tukhbatullin, currently resident in Austria. Mr. Tukhbatullin is the director of the Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights (TIHR), a non-governmental organisation founded in 2004 and based in Vienna, Austria. 76. The TIHR publishes information and submits reports regarding the human rights situation in Turkmenistan. A similar communication has been sent to the Government of Turkmenistan. The reason this appeal has also been sent to your Excellency's Government is to draw its attention to this case so that adequate measures may be taken to ensure the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Tukhbatullin 77. According to the information received, on 9 and 11 October 2010, Mr. Farid Tukhbatullin was informed by reliable sources that agents of the Ministry of National Security (MNS) of Turkmenistan were allegedly planning to assassinate him. According to the said sources, Ministry officials had discussed assassinating Mr. Tukhbatullin in such a way as not to give rise to suspicion of foul play, such as through an orchestrated “accident” or by inducing heart failure. 78. The alleged assassination plot has reportedly been linked to a recent interview given by Mr. Tukhbatullin concerning the TIHR’s assessment of the human rights situation in Turkmenistan. The interview was broadcast on the satellite TV channel K+ on 28 and 29 September 2010. 79. In a possibly related incident, the TIHR’s website was subsequently attacked by an unknown group of hackers and was largely inaccessible for several days following the broadcast of the interview. 80. It is reported that on 18 October 2010, Mr. Tukhbatullin, along with the founding chairman of the Republican Party of Turkmenistan in exile, Mr. Nurmuhammet Khanamov, were denied registration as participants in the OSCE review conference at Hofburg Palace, Vienna. However, On 19 October 2010, the decision was taken to grant Messrs. Tukhbatullin and Khanamov admission to the conference, which allegedly prompted the official delegation of Turkmenistan to leave the conference room. 81. It is reported that the Turkmen authorities have on various occasions attempted to hinder the work of the TIHR, such as through attempting to identify its correspondents within Turkmenistan, whose identities are not disclosed. It is alleged that in June 2010, officials from the MNS visited several schools in Mr. Tukhbatullin’s former home town, and interviewed former classmates, teachers, and friends of Mr. Tukhbatullin’s sons with a view to identifying such correspondents. 82. It has also been reported that in April 2008, Mr. Tukhbatullin was warned by a Turkmenistani diplomat to “tone down” criticism of the Turkmenistani authorities on his organization’s website, or cease his activities entirely. 83. Mr. Tukhbatullin, who has worked on environmental and human rights issues in Turkmenistan since 1993, was arrested and imprisoned in Turkmenistan in December 2002, allegedly as a result of his human rights activities. Following his release from prison in April 2003, he left Turkmenistan for Austria, where he was granted refugee status, and founded the TIHR in November 2004.

15

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

84. Concern was expressed that the alleged plot to assassinate Mr. Farid Tukhbatullin may have been related to his legitimate and peaceful work in defence of human rights in Turkmenistan. In this connection, serious concern is also expressed for the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Farid Tukhbatullin and his family.

Response from the Government 85. In a letter dated 10 December 2010, the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent on 1 November 2010. 86. Austria considers the aforementioned case to be serious, and confirms that there is a clear risk situation. The facts as they are set out in the urgent appeal correspond with those available to the competent Austrian authorities. 87. Immediately after the alleged threats against Mr. Farid Tukhbatullin were brought to the Attention of Austria, the competent Austrian Authorities have contacted Mr. Tukhbatullin and subsequently taken all necessary measures based on a risk analysis. 88. For the sake of Mr. Tukhbatullin’s personal safety details of the security and investigative measures cannot be unveiled. However, Austria would like to reassure that the competent authorities are taking the case of Mr. Tukhbatullin very seriously and provide all necessary protective measures to ensure Mr. Tukhbatullin’s personal safety in Austria.

Observations 89. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Austria for responding to her communication dated 1 November 2010 and takes note of the measures taken by the Government to ensure that Mr. Turkbatullin’s security needs are met.

Bahrain Letter of allegations 90. On 5 March 2010, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression sent a letter of allegations concerning Mr. Nabeel Rajab, president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR), Mr. Mohamed Al-Maskati, president of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights (BYSHR), and Mr. Abdul Ghani Al-Khanjar, spokesperson for the National Committee for Martyrs and Victims of Torture (NCMVT). 91. BCHR is a broad-based human rights organization which has continued to operate despite being ordered to close by the authorities in November 2004. BYSHR is a youth-led human rights organization, founded in 2005 but denied registration by the authorities. NCMVT has been involved in organizing protests and public events to commemorate victims of conflict and uprisings in Bahrain. Mr. Nabeel Rajab was the subject of communications sent by the then 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 on 25 July 2005 and 6 October 2004. 92. In recent months, Mr. Rajab, Mr. Al-Maskati and Mr. Al-Khanjar have worked with the international organization Human Rights Watch in the preparation of a report on the increasing use of torture by the Bahraini authorities. Entitled “Torture Redux”, the report

16

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

contains testimonies of victims of torture and ill-treatment, including those of human rights defenders and political activists. Published on 8 February 2010, the report acknowledges human rights activists who assisted in its preparation, and identifies Mr. Rajab, Mr. AlMaskati and Mr. Al-Khanjar by name. 93. According to the information received, in recent weeks, a media smear campaign has been carried out against Mr. Rajab, Mr. Al-Maskati and Mr. Al-Khanjar. Beginning on 9 February 2010, unsubstantiated statements have been published regarding the activities of the three human rights defenders in various national newspapers, including The Gulf News, Al Watan News and Bahrain Voice. Several such articles have been published to date and the campaign appears to be ongoing. The statements include unsubstantiated allegations that Mr. Rajab, Mr. Al-Maskati and Mr. Al-Khanjar have betrayed their country, have committed acts of violence and have used Molotov cocktails. 94. In addition, on 16 February 2010 a radio program was broadcast on Bahrain Radio Station in which Mr. Faisal Fulath, a member of the Shura Council, Mr. Adel Al Mghwdah, a Member of Parliament, and Mr. Mohammed Al-Shooruqi, a broadcaster, publicly condemned Mr. Rajab, Mr. Al-Maskati and Mr. Al-Khanjar. The previously published allegations against the three human rights defenders were repeated, in addition to accusations that they had links to foreign Governments, that they incited Bahraini youth to committing acts of violence, and that they had defamed the State before international organisations. 95. It is believed that the media campaign against Mr. Rajab, Mr. Al-Maskati and Mr. Al-Khanjar may be related to their work in the preparation of the report “Torture Redux”, which was published the day before the first articles against them appeared in the press. It is believed that the media campaign may directly encourage public discontent with human rights defenders and their activities, in addition to discrediting Mr. Rajab, Mr. Al-Maskati and Mr. Al-Khanjar and the organisations they represent. 96. Concern was expressed that the media smear campaign against Mr. Rajab, Mr. AlMaskati and Mr. Al-Khanjar was related to their work in the defence of human rights, in particular their work against torture and against violations of human rights by the authorities, and their cooperation with international organizations, in particular Human Rights Watch, in the publicizing of such abuses.

Response from the Government 97. In a letter dated 27 October 2010, the Government responded to the communication sent on 5 March 2010. 98. It is noted that the communication quite correctly makes no allegation of the government being involved – indeed Bahrain’s media is justifiably regarded as being impartial and independent. The government does not, and constitutionally cannot, seek to control the media and is therefore not in a position to characterise (whether as “smear campaign” or otherwise) the output of any media organization, particularly where that output involves the expression of opinion by private citizens. Further, the rights of freedom of opinion and expression are protected by Bahrain’s laws and Constitution, and the government takes its domestic and international commitments in this regard very seriously. Complainants are fully entitled to seek redress for any violations of rights through the Public Prosecutor’s Office, an independent body affiliated to the Ministry of Justice, and assurances are given that Bahrain’s prosecutorial, judicial and legal system treats all litigants equally.

17

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

99. The government believes that such judicial and other remedies should be exhausted, or at least seriously pursued, before alleged violations of rights can properly be raised internationally. 100. The government continues to welcome and engage domestically and internationally in our common endeavour to promote and protect human rights. The individuals referred to in the Communication are most certainly able to carry out their peaceful and legitimate human rights activities freely and without fear in Bahrain, and their close co-operation with Human Rights Watch (to which the Communication refers) bears testament to this. I would also note that the Human Rights Watch report in question was in fact launched in Bahrain, at a public meeting, equally freely and without any fear or restriction. This once again underlines the government’s commitment to freedom of expression and to protecting legitimate human rights defenders, even in cases where we might strongly but respectfully disagree with what they say. 101. In this context, the government considers the allegations to be erroneous, and any attempt to present these claims as fact when, in reality, the allegations are strongly contradicted by facts set out above, is regrettable. 102. Finally, the opportunity is taken to reiterate the government’s firm and unwavering commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and opinion, and to complying with and respecting international human rights instruments.

Letter of allegations 103. On 28 April 2010, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, sent a letter of allegations regarding the situation of the Bahrain Human Rights Society (BHRS), an organization established in 2001 to promote human rights in Bahrain. According to the information received, on 21 March 2010, BHRS sent a letter to the Bahraini Ministry of Social Development asking, pursuant to a recently established practice, that it addresses the Directorate of Immigration and Passports to facilitate the granting of visas of foreign participants attending its capacity building workshop on human rights scheduled to take place from 27 to 29 May 2010. The workshop, organized in collaboration with the Association for the Prevention of Torture, was to address several issues related to the rights of detainees and prisoners such as the basic rules for the treatment of prisoners, the use of international human rights mechanisms, and the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 104. On 19 April 2010, BHRS was denied the holding of the workshop by a letter from the Ministry of Social Development. The letter allegedly stated that “after reviewing the request and the program of the event, it was found that the workshop contradicts with the objectives of BHRS by-laws, Decree Law No. (21) of 1989 Promulgating the Law on associations and social and cultural clubs and organizations working in the field of youth sports and private institutions, and in particular Article 18, which states: ‘the Association may not get involved in political activities’. And therefore we are unable to approve your request mentioned above; this stresses the need to comply with ... the law.” 105. Concern was expressed that the denial of permission of the workshop might be directly related to the work of BHRS in defence of human rights.

18

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

Response from the Government 106. In a letter dated 11 January 2011, the Government responded to the communication sent on 28 April 2010 but, at the time of the finalization of this report, the reply of the Government had not been translated.

Urgent appeal 107. On 20 August 2010, the Special Rapporteur, together with the ChairpersonRapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special 108. 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 the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, sent a joint urgent appeal regarding the situation of Dr. Abduljalil Al Singace, Director and Spokesperson of the Human Rights Bureau of the Haq Movement for Civil Liberties and Democracy, Mr. Abdul Ghani Al Kanja, Spokesperson of the National Committee for Martyrs and Victims of Torture, Mr. Jaffar Al-Hessabi, a Bahraini human right activist who has been living in the United Kingdom (UK) for 15 years where he has advocated for the release of political prisoners, Mr. Mohammed Saeed, a board member of the non-governmental organization Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, as well as Sheikh Mohammed Al-Moqdad, Sheikh Saeed Al-Nori, Sheikh Mirza Al-Mahroos and Sheikh Abdulhadi Al-Mukhuder, four religious and political activists. 109. According to the information received, on 13 August 2010, Mr. Abduljalil Al Singace was reportedly arrested at Bahrain International Airport on his way back from the UK with his family, following his participation on 5 August in a seminar on the human rights situation in Bahrain held at the House of Lords, during which he denounced the alleged deterioration of the human rights and environmental situation in the country. During his stay in the UK, Mr. Al Singace took the opportunity to meet with a number of international human rights organizations. According to reports, Mr. Al Singace, who is disabled and requires the use of a wheelchair, was forcefully apprehended by the authorities. On the same day, a peaceful demonstration in solidarity took place in front of Mr. Al Singace’s house, and was violently repressed by security forces using tear-gas, sound bombs and rubber bullets. Several demonstrators were injured in the course of the operation. 110. On 15 August 2010, security forces raided Mr. Abdul Ghani Al Kanja’s home, arrested him and confiscated his computer and mobile phones. 111. It is reported that Messrs Al Singace and Al Kanja are accused of “forming an organized network aiming at weakening the security and the stability of the country” under the Anti-Terrorism Law and the Criminal Code. According to Mr Al Singace’s lawyer who spoke to the Public Prosecution Office, case numbers are yet to be assigned and Mr. Abduljalil Al Singace will face charges of sedition and making unauthorised contact with foreign bodies. Both Messrs Al Singace and Al Kanja are reportedly denied access to their lawyer and to their families. Their whereabouts remain unknown as of 20 August 2010. 112. On 16 August 2010, Mr. Jaffar Al-Hessabi was arrested at Bahrain International Airport on his way back from Iran, following his participation in peaceful protests in London. 113.

On 17 August 2010, Mr. Mohammed Saeed was arrested at his home.

19

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

114. Finally, between 15 and 17 August 2010, Messrs Sheikh Mohammed Al-Moqdad, Sheikh Saeed Al-Nori, Sheikh Mirza Al-Mahroos and Sheikh Abdulhadi Al-Mukhuder were arrested following their recent participation in peaceful protests calling for the release of political prisoners. 115. Serious concerns were expressed that the arrest and detention of Messrs Abduljalil Al Singace, Abdul Ghani Al Kanja, Jaffar Al-Hessabi, Mohammed Saeed, Sheikh Mohammed Al-Moqdad, Sheikh Saeed Al-Nori, Sheikh Mirza Al-Mahroos and Sheikh Abdulhadi Al-Mukhuder, and the charges brought against some of them, may be linked to their peaceful activities in defence of human rights, while exercising their right to freedom of opinion and expression. In view of the incommunicado detention of Messrs Abduljalil Al Singace and Abdul Ghani Al Kanja, and possibly of Messrs Jaffar Al-Hessabi, Mohammed Saeed, Sheikh Mohammed Al-Moqdad, Sheikh Saeed Al-Nori, Sheikh Mirza Al-Mahroos and Sheikh Abdulhadi Al-Mukhuder, further concerns are expressed for their physical and psychological integrity, most notably for Abduljalil Al Singace who is disabled and needs assistance to walk. Finally, concern was expressed about the excessive use of force against participants of the peaceful protest in front of Mr. Abduljalil Al Singace’s house.

Response from the Government 116. In a letter dated 12 October 2010, the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent on 20 August 2010. 117. The eight suspects have been arrested because evidence has emerged that they are allied in a structured network aimed at compromising national security and abusing the country’s stability. Namely, this network aims to overthrow and change the political system of the country, dissolve the constitution and obstruct the enforcement of its provisions, inciting and planning terrorist acts, inciting hatred and contempt against the regime, threatening public order and endangering the safety and security of the Kingdom. 118. This network has spread disorder in the country by recruiting youths and juveniles and inciting them to compose sabotage groups to commit acts of riot, violence and vandalism, disturbance of civil peace, attacking security personnel, nationals and foreigners residing in Bahrain, terrorizing them and damaging their private properties. 119. All such acts are punishable crimes pursuant to Law No.58 of 2006 with respect to Protecting the Community from Terrorist Acts. The suspects were arrested under this law and not under Bahrain’s Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that suspects must be brought before the Public Prosecution within 48 hours of arrest. According to Article 27 of Law No. 58 of 2006, Judicial Officers are granted the right, subject to the emergence of sufficient evidence, to issue a protective custody order for a period not exceeding five days, and if necessary, permission may be obtained from the Public Prosecution to extend the custody to a period not exceeding 10 days. Such permission is strictly granted if the Judicial Officer provides sufficient evidence that the extension of the custody is essential for the continuation of the investigations. Following this period of 10 days, the suspects were duly referred to the Public Prosecution. 120. As a principal division of the judicial authority, the Public Prosecution have commenced and handled criminal proceedings. Working in its capacity as an investigation and indictment authority, and, following intensive investigations by prosecutors into the clandestine terror network, the eight suspects were laid with 12 charges under the Penal Code No. 15 of 1976, Law No. 58 of 2006 with respect to Protecting the Community from Terrorist Acts and Law No. 4 of 2001 with respect to Countering Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism. The charges include: founding, organising and managing an outlawed organisation with the aim of violating the law and disrupting provisions of the

20

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

constitution and to prevent public authorities from exercising their duties, using terrorism; creation and establishment of an organization with the objective of overthrowing the regime, changing the statutes and using illegal violent means such as arson and vandalism; taking part in acts of sabotage, destruction and arson with terrorist attempt; raising funds for an organization that is involved in terrorist acts inside the country, willingly and knowingly; disseminating hatred and mockery of the political system through public speeches and the internet; agreeing and inciting to destroy public property; spreading provocative propaganda, news and false statements to destabilize public security and cause damages to public interests; publicly instigating sectarian hatred which disturbs civil peace; inciting others through public speeches and the Internet to disregard the law; inciting participation in public congregations with the purpose of committing arson, vandalism, and confronting the security authorities; and unlawfully using force and violence to compel a public servant to abstain from his duty. 121. It is clear that all charges are on terror crimes, use of force and instigation to it. In this regard, it should be mentioned that all guarantees relevant to the suspects’ rights have been respected during the investigations. 122. In response to the information received by the Working Group with regard to the reasons for the suspects’ arrest, the Government would like to emphasize that the arrests were based purely on security measures, and were not motivated by nor linked to their peaceful activities in defence of human rights, but had been in the light of the existence of confirmed information, investigations and evidence that they are part of a structured network aimed at compromising national security and abusing the country’s stability. 123. Following the arrest of the eight suspects, they have all confessed that they were indeed involved in forming sabotage groups and instructed them to carry out rioting, arson, vandalism and attacking security men. Abduljalil Al-Singace confessed that he supported the groups financially to purchase necessary equipment and materials to undertake such sinful acts. He also admitted in details that he, along with the other seven suspects, incited openly and secretly to spread chaos in the country and to carry out sabotage acts, along with fund raising from citizens and businessmen under the guise of religion, charity and support for the families of prisoners and alleged martyrs and victims of torture. 124. Further, security authorities have arrested individuals who carried out arsons and rioting in varying incidents and in various areas, all of whom have confessed that Abduljalil Al-Singace was their main supporter and inciter for those acts. 125. In relation to the Working Group’s concern regarding whether the acts shall be criminalised as terrorist, the first two conditions (means used and intent) put forward by the group will be demonstrated. Firstly, with respect to the means used. The sabotage groups have been committing acts of violence, rioting, vandalizing private and public properties, carrying out arsons, blocking highways and crippling all forms of life activities. These groups have added violence to their acts by using Molotov bombs, homemade bombs and sharpened iron bars. Molotov bombs are considered as improvised incendiary weapons and are primarily intended to set targets ablaze and destroy them. In fact, two police were killed in two separate horrific attacks by Molotov bombs: a policeman, and an innocent Pakistani passer-by, father of five. 126. Secondly, concerning the intent behind the aforementioned attacks, it may be seen from these acts of violence that the sabotage groups are aiming at the destruction of public order. They intend to cause fear among the general population and they chose to undertake their terrorist acts at night to spread even greater terror in the hearts of the general public. Some of the suspects have confessed that this intent was present while inciting the sabotage groups to commit acts of destruction to public order.

21

A/HRC/16/44/Add.1

127. Hence, having seen that the means used by the sabotage groups can be described as deadly and of serious violence against members of the general population; and, having regard that the intent is to cause fear among the population along with destructing public order, one may fairly deduce that the bold presence of these two conditions cumulatively fulfill these acts to be criminalised as terrorist. 128. Last but not least, elucidation shall duly be made on the allegations on the violent repression by security forces of the peaceful protest in front of Abduljalil Al-Singace’s house. Principally, the Government has taken all necessary steps to ensure the right of peaceful assembly. Acting in accordance with Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government recognizes that no restrictions may be placed on this right other than those imposed inconformity with the law and which are necessary in the interest of national security of public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In this connection, participants in the protest in front of AlSingace’s house have resorted to violence for realization of the purpose for which they have assembled (release Al-Singace), causing their peaceful demonstration to be deemed as a riot. Security forces have exercised their authority granted by Article 180 of the Penal Code and ordered the demonstrators to disperse. Should the order come to no avail, security forces shall be empowered to take the necessary measures for dispersing those who have not complied with the order by arresting them and may use force within reasonable limits against any person resisting said order. They may not use firearms except in extreme necessity or when someone’s life is in danger. The demonstrators have continued rioting despite receiving orders from security forces to disperse. Having ignored such orders, and, having regard to the interest of public order, security forces were compelled to use force to confront and terminate the mounting violence and disperse the rioters. In this connection, security forces have exerted force in accordance with the provisions of the public security forces law. Namely, Article 13 has regulated the use of force in dispersing demonstrators and rioters. Force is only exerted following the failure of non-violent means, warning of resorting to the use of force and being the only remaining means of separation. Along with resorting to force in order to obstruct an assault or resistance from demonstrators or rioters. 129. In this connection, mention shall be duly made that these rioters and protesters, who were initially incited by the suspects, have been camouflaging their acts of violence by labeling them as human rights activism or peaceful demonstrations or protests. It goes without saying that committing acts of riot, violence and vandalism under the disguise of promoting and protecting human rights reflects nothing but a solid violation of Article 3 of the Univ