International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
2
http://www.icfr.info
The Delegation to Egypt of Lawyers from the International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights (ICFR)
Contents 1-
Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[4]
2 - Terms of Reference ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ 6 ] 3 - Observers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ 7 ] 4 - Respect for International Human Rights Law ------------------------------------------------ [ 8 ] 5 - Context ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ 9 ] 6-
Pre-Trial -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ 10 ]
7 - Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ 12 ] 8 - Recommendations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ 13 ] 9 - Excerpts from the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights ------------ [ 14 ] 10 - Excerpts from the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights ---------------- [ 15 ]
International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
3
http://www.icfr.info
T
he International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights (ICFR) organized a delegation of international lawyers to Egypt to review the trial of President Mohammed Morsi in Egyptian courts for three separate but related cases. In 2012, Mohammed Morsi became Egypt›s first democratically elected President. On 3 July 2013, the Egyptian military led by General Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi issued an ultimatum to President Morsi ordering him to “meet the people›s demands” within 48 hours or face military action. The ultimatum did not define the “people›s demands” but appeared to primarily refer to a dispute between Morsi›s government and the Tamarod movement. President Morsi refused to meet the deadline and a military coup removed him from power on 3 July 2013. The military claimed to be implementing the wishes of the people although its actions were contrary to the express terms of the Egyptian Constitution adopted by popular referendum in 2012 and the results of the 2012 election. President Morsi and his key aides were arrested in the weeks that followed the military coup and were initially held incommunicado and without charge. In late July 2013 President Morsi was detained on
Introduction
charges of inciting murder in connection with ordering the use of force against protesters who had attacked the Presidential building in Cairo in December 2012 and on separate charges of collaborating with the elected Hamas government in the State of Palestine. On 1 September 2013, President Morsi was formally charged with incitement to murder involving the events of December 2012. In December of 2013, he was formally charged with collaborating with Hamas against the Egyptian state, and with an additional charges related to his escape from prison in 2011 along with 130 other prisoners. The charges against President Morsi allow for the death penalty upon conviction. President Morsi›s incommunicado detention continued until 4 November 2013, with only a single visit in late July 2013 by Ms Catherine Ashton, the Foreign Relations envoy of
International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
4
the European Union, and representatives of the African Union. At a hearing before the Egyptian High Court in Cairo on 4 November 2013, it was stated that President Morsi was being held at Borg al-Arab Prison in Alexandria. At this hearing the President stated that he did not wish to have legal representation as he rejected the authority of the Court over him. Several of his colleagues at the hearing were represented by legal counsel. These included Mr. Mohamed Mahdi Akef, Mr. Mohamed Badie, Mr. Khairat al-Shater, Mr. Rashad Bayoumi, Mr. Saad al-Katatni, all members of the Freedom and Justice Party, and Mr. Abdelmonim Abdelmaqsud, the lawyer of the several defendants. Since 4 November 2013, there have been regular demonstrations calling for the restoration of President Morsi as the elected President of Egypt. The authorities have reacted aggressively http://www.icfr.info
towards these demonstrations by arresting thousands of demonstrators and killing hundreds. Activists and family members interviewed by the delegation repeatedly detailed claims of the excessive use of force to control demonstrations, the use of provocateurs to instigate violence, beatings—including sexual assaults and rapes—of persons who have been detained by the authorities, killings of persons—including to pressure other persons to turn themselves in or support the military coup, harassment and arrest of students during police invasions of university campuses, expulsion of students for engaging in peaceful political activity, detention of minors, excessive sentences for crimes, manipulation of evidence, and the incitement of violence against individuals who oppose the military coup. The observers also received testimony that Egyptian citizens have been beaten and arrested for violating the new law banning protests that was adopted on 24 November 2013. Numerous reports were made that persons have been arrested for displaying the Ra›baa sign (raising four fingers) and for participating in peaceful political activity on university campus-
es. Public spaces throughout Cairo also displayed banners urging adoption of the new Constitution during the upcoming referendum on 14 and 15 January 2014. However, there were absolutely no public expression of opposition to the referendum despite the fact that the referendum is a contentious issue in Egyptian society. Opponents of the referendum interviewed by the delegation expressed the belief that any public expression of opposition would be met by the authorities with arrests and other repressive acts. On 25 December 2013, the Muslim Brotherhood was declared a terrorist organization by the military government. Despite repeated public demands, the current Egyptian authorities and public prosecutor have not initiated any legal investigations of responsibility for the massacres at the Ra›baa Mosque and al-Nahda Square, or other claims of abuse of power and excessive force. On 20 December 2013, lawyers acting for the government of President Morsi that had been removed in July 2013, requested the International Criminal Court investigate the leaders of the military coup and their supporters for crimes against humanity, provid-
International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
5
ing a dossier detailing many of the above allegations. Egypt society is currently experiencing severe economic and social stress. As a result tensions among the population are running high and several governments have issued travel advisories to their nationals discouraging them from traveling to Egypt. Although the situation in Egypt today is characterized by different political views between various parties and social forces, this report does not examine these political views as they are an internal matter for Egyptians to resolve. Nevertheless, international law does provide some very basic guiding principles for achieving the resolution of Egypt›s internal differences and to which Egypt has voluntarily agreed. The focus of this report, therefore, is on whether or not the Egyptian authorities› conduct is consistent with Egypt›s obligations under international law, which is part of Egyptian law according to the Constitution. The focus is on the trials of President Morsi, but the report also considers the trial of other related persons and the general context of respect for international human rights law in Egypt. http://www.icfr.info
Terms of Reference
T
his observation visit was organized by the International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights (ICFR). It was asked to attend the trial of President Mohammed Morsi and to meet with government and non-government officials to assess the legality of the trial and the state of human rights in Egypt. Although no additoional guidelines were provided
the observers agreed that their terms of reference would be as follows: 1. to meet with a broad a number of people both from the authorities and civil society to assess the state of human rights generally in Egypt and specifically surrounding the trial of President Mohammed Morsi and his colleagues; 2. to meet with people connect-
International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
6
ed to the trial to assess whether the trial meets international due process or fair trial standards that have been agreed to by Egypt as international human rights law; 3. to review the judicial process and its context for consistency with international law, especially international human rights law. ď Žď Ž
http://www.icfr.info
Observers
T
he observers were the following lawyers: Barrister Georges Henri Beauthier (Belgium), Advocate Shabnam E. Mayet (South Africa), Mr. Bruce Nestor, Esq., (United States of America), and Dr. Curtis F.J. Doebbler (United States of America and State of Palestine). Barrister George Henri Beauthier practices Belgian and international law and has worked on prominent international criminal law cases. Advocate Shabnam E. Mayet practices human rights law in South Africa and has worked on
a range of international cases. Mr. Nestor is a criminal defense attorney in the United States and past President of the National Lawyers Guild, a constituent organization of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Dr. Doebbler practices international human rights law before international bodies and is a member of the District of Columbia Bar in the United States. Requests to the Egyptian authorities for the above observers to attend the trial of President Morsi prior to
International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
7
the trial and again on the day of the trial, Wednesday, 8 January 2014. No formal response was provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Ministry of Justice, or Judge Ahmed Sabri, the judge of the court hearing the case. The Secretary-General of the Egyptian Lawyers’ Syndicate provided the observers a letter stating that they were welcome to attend the trial, which should be open to the public so as to be consistent with Egypt’s international human rights obligations.
http://www.icfr.info
Respect for International Human Rights Law
E
gypt has ratified multiple in- the right to be tried by a court constiternational human rights in- tuted in accordance with law existing struments. Of importance to this trial a the time of one arrest and through observation visit are especially the a process that accords with that stipInternational Covenant of Civil and ulated by law (art. 14 ICCPR and arPolitical Rights (ICCPR), G.A. Res. ticle 7 ACHPR), the right to security 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. of person that includes protection (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 against secret detention (art. 9 ICCPR (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into and article 6 ACHPR), and the right force 23 March 1976 (Egypt has not for all persons to participate in their ratified the first Optional Protocol al- own government including to have lowing individual petitions), and the their vote respected and to hold office African Charter of Human and Peo- when elected (art. 25 ICCPR and arples’ Rights (ACHPR), adopted 27 ticle 13 ACHPR). These two treaties June 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 and the above cited articles have been rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered the focus of the observation visit and into force 21 October 1986. These report. They reflect international law two treaties provide most noticeably that the government of Egypt has for the right to fair trial that includes agreed to respect. International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights 8
Other treaties of relevance that Egypt has ratified are the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which serves as the basis of the work of the Arab Commission on Human Rights, and the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights under Islam, which serves as the basis of the work of the Permanent Commission on Human Rights of the OIC. Notably Egypt has not ratified the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. http://www.icfr.info
O
n 3 July 2013, the Egyptian Military acting under the command of General Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi forcibly removed the elected President of Egypt Mr. Mohammed Morsi. According to the Constitution in force on 3 July 2013, the Egyptian President may only be removed by a process of impeachment in accordance with article 152 of the 2012 Constitution requiring that “at least a third of the members of the House of Representatives sponsor a motion of impeachment, and the House passes the motion with a two-thirds majority.” Moreover, the “President of the Republic is to be tried before a special tribunal headed by the President of the High Council of Judges and staffed by the senior deputies of the President of the High Constitutional Court and the State Council, and the two most senior presidents of the appeals courts.” An almost identical process of impeachment appears in the Constitution being promulgated by the authorities that came to power by the 3 July 2013 military coup. In any event, this process was not followed. Instead, President Morsi
Context was removed through an extra-constitutional process led by the military that can accurately be described as a military coup. As a result of these extra-constitutional actions, the African Union on 5 July 2013, suspended Egypt’s membership. Several Egyptians interviewed pointed out that when President Hosni Mubarak was deposed on 11 February 2011, it was through his resignation in accordance with the Constitution of Egypt in force at that time and not through an extra constitutional process brought about by he threat or use of military force. Mr. Mohammed Morsi was forced from Office by the threat of military force and the use of deadly force against members his Freedom and Justice Party. The majority of persons interviewed by the delegation did not support the military coup. The principle exception was the International Cooperation Director of the Prosecutor General’s Office, Mr. Kamel Samir. He expressed the opinion that there had been a revolution in July 2013 and that the current authorities were in power as a
International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
9
result of that revolution. He stated that the trial of the President was a regular trial of a criminal defendant and was completely consistent with the rule of law. Mr. Samir stated the Prosecutor General could not authorize the delegation to attend the trial, that he could not provide us a copy of the statement of charges against President Morsi that had been prepared for the press, and that these statements were evidence that the trial was consistent with the rule of law. An associate in the Prosecutor General’s Office present during the meeting with Mr. Samir stated that the reason that President Morsi was being tried in a manner other than that prescribed by the Constitution was that current authorities did not accept him to be the President of Egypt. When asked about issues relating to fair trial. Mr. Samir stated repeatedly that these issues were not within his area of concern. The representatives of the Prosecutor General also denied that the Egyptian Constitution from 2011 had a provision (art. 152) that provides for the removal of the President by impeachment. http://www.icfr.info
P
resident Morsi was taken into custody on 3 July 2014. He was held incommunicado until late July when he was allowed to meet the European Union Council’s Foreign Affairs representative Ms Catherine Ashton and representatives of the African Union. He continued to be denied access to lawyers or family except for a single phone call in October of 2013, before President Morsi met his lawyers on 4 November 2014 for 30 minutes immediately before the hearing held on that day at the Police Academy in Cairo, Egypt. At this hearing President Morsi reiterated to the court that he did not recognize its jurisdiction over him and that in accordance with the Constitution of Egypt he was the elected President of Egypt. The judge did not rule on these arguments and instead delayed the hearing until 8 January 2014. After the 4 November hearing President Morsi had a single visit with his family on 8 November 2013. President Morsi’s son, Osama Morsi, traveled from Cairo to visit him six times at Borg Al-Arab prison in Alexandria. Each time the visit was denied by the prison authorities, who also denied his son the opportunity to provide clothing and basic necessities to his father. President Morsi’s lawyers, despite making repeated requests for
Pre-Trial
visits and having three of them approved by the prosecuting authorities and/or the court, were denied all access to President Morsi except for a single one and one-half hour visit on 19 November 2013. This visit took place at Borg al-Arab Prison in Alexandria, Egypt, where President Morsi was being held at that time. Since November, 19th no lawyer has been able to meet President Morsi and his family has been denied all access to him. No evidence of the location of President’s Morsi’s detention has been provided to either his family or legal counsel. Requests to confirm the whereabouts and well-being of President Morsi after he did not appear in Court on 8 January 2014 received no reply. The charges that have been provided to the lawyers of the defense team working on behalf of all the defendants stated that President Morsi is charged with the following: 1. Incitement to violence and murder alleging President Morsi’s involvement in events that occurred in December 2012 during a demonstration protesting his policies outside the Presidential Palace in Ittihadiya. 2. Providing state secrets to and collaborating with Hamas, the authorities in the State of Palestine who were elected in 2006, against the Egyptian state.
International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
10
3. Attacks on police officers and escape related to President Morsi’s departure from prison along with approximately 130 other persons during the 2011 revolution that resulted in the resignation of then-President Hosni Mubarak. The lawyers involved in representing the defendants stated that Judge Ahmed Sabri, who is overseeing the trial of President Morsi, was chosen through an irregular process that was not in conformity with standard practice concerning the assignment of judges. These lawyers also stated that it has become commonplace to choose the judges through an irregular process for trials involving members of the Freedom and Justice Party They also indicated that over 300 lawyers have been arrested for acts related to their representation of arrestees and clients, and that dozens of judges are under investigation due to allegations of involvement in political activities opposing the military coup. The defense team lawyers gave the following reasons that President Morsi could not receive a fair trial: 1. President Morsi had been removed from the office of President of Egypt by extra-constitutional means by the military. As a result, instead of being tried before the proper tribunal specified by the Constitution, he was being tried by http://www.icfr.info
special national security courts with no jurisdiction over him. 2. President Morsi was not allowed contact with his lawyer from 3 July until his appearance in court on 4 November 2013. The only other contact with legal counsel was for approximately 90 minutes on 19 November 2013. 3. President Morsi was denied contact with his family from the date of his initial detention until a visit on 8 November 2013, which was the only family visit to date. 4. The lawyers have not been provided adequate time with President Morsi and have been denied visits to him even when the proper authorities had approved their requests for visits. In late December 2013, the legal team was notified by the office of the Prosecutor General that they should be present at Borg Al-Arab prison during a planned interrogation of President Morsi. Despite being informed by phone that the prosecutors were present at the prison, upon arrival at the prison the legal team was denied access and was told by prison authorities that the prosecutor was not present and no interrogation was planned. 5. The defense team lawyers function in an environment in which any person associated with the Muslim Brotherhood is labelled a terrorist. As a result, lawyers have been harassed by being regularly arrested and charged with the crimes of their cli-
ents because they are legally representing them. 6. Labeling the charges as involving terrorism also give the prosecution excessive authority and intimidate witnesses from participating in the proceedings. 7. Judges have been placed under investigation as a result of association with the Freedom and Justice Party and opposition to the military coup. Several judges have been dismissed from office due to such allegations. Judges with ties to the Mubarak regime or current military government are not subject investigation or being removed from cases. In addition, President Morsi had sought to reform the judiciary including by imposing a retirement age of 62. These reforms were opposed by the same judiciary which is now trying the cases against President Morsi and members of the Freedom and Justice Party. 8. The government issued a decree on 25 September 2013, removing the limit on the time that a person may be detained without charge or without being brought before a judge. The decree made unlimited detention without charge possible. 9. The government has launched a public and media campaign to vilify Mr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, with whom President Morsi is associated, including declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. As part of this campaign, the government has closed
International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
11
newspapers and arrested journalists who publish information contrary to the government’s views. In addition, eyewitnesses to the events related to the charges have been interviewed on television, during which government spokespersons state that they have evidence supporting the charges and that President Morsi will be sentenced to death. These acts have created an atmosphere which creates extreme pressure on any judge involved in trials of Brotherhood members or officials of the Morsi government. These claims, if substantiated, indicate serious violations of due process rights stated in article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. In addition the fact the current government ruling Egypt came to power as the result of a military coup that overrode the will of Egyptians that was expressed in a fair and free election in 2012 together with interferences with the judiciary alleged by numerous lawyers interviewed the the delegation appears to indicate that the right of all Egyptians to participate in their government, including President Morsi, that is found in article 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and article 25 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, has been violated. http://www.icfr.info
T
he right to a fair trial provides for safeguards not only before a trial, but also at a trial and at every hearing. In this case the trial is still in a very beginning preliminary phase, but there are already indications of further interferences with Mr. Morsi’s right to a fair trial. The hearing on 4 November 2013 was held without providing lawyers the prior opportunity to advise President Morsi or to prepare his case. During the short hearing President Morsi stated to the Court that he did not recognize its jurisdiction over him. He also stated that he wished to represent himself. The charges against him and several colleagues who were also in the courtroom were read out and the hearing adjourned. On 8 January 2014, a second hearing was scheduled to be held in a closed zone within the “Police Academy” in the Fifth settlement in Masri Jaddeda, Cairo. The number of lawyers that were allowed to attend was limited and no members of the
Trial general public were allowed to attend. Although 90 lawyers requested permission to attend the hearing, only 14 requests were accepted, and only four lawyers were ultimately allowed to enter the courtroom. The Secretary-General of the Egyptian Bar Association, several non-governmental legal organizations, and the defendants’ lawyers had also requested in writing permission from Judge Sabri, the Prosecutor-General, and the Minister of Justice for the four observers to attend the trial. No response was ever forthcoming from any of these persons or institutions. The observers were not able to enter the trial, but observed the conditions under which it was held from outside the highly-guarded “Police Academy”. Several hours after the trial was suppose to have started on 8 November, the Court convened and Judge Sabri announce that the hearing was being postponed until 1 February 2014. The official reason for postponing trial was due to bad weather
International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
12
that prevented President Morsi from being brought to the courtroom. Weather reports for Alexandria and Cairo, however, did not indicate the existence of weather that would have prohibited the operation of aircraft and the Alexandria airport remained open on that date. No member of President Morsi’s family or legal team has seen him or talked to him since 19 November 2013. Prior to that date, President Morsi was imprisoned along with his personal assistant, Refaa Al-Tahtawi. Since 19 November 2013, no family or legal visits with Mr. Tahtawi have occurred. The incommunicado detention of Morsi and his staff raises serious concerns for their life and well-being and is contrary to international law providing for the security of persons against disappearances article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and article 9 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
http://www.icfr.info
Recommendations In light of the above visit and the above comments the international lawyers undertaking this visit have the following recommendations. To the Egyptian authorities:
1. that they take immediate and effective action to restore the constitutional government;; 2. that they immediately and definitively stop the arbitrarily arrests and prosecutions ; 3. that they ensure all provisions of the right to fair trial for any defendants in criminal trials, including allowing defendants regular visits by family and lawyers and ending policies of prolonged and arbitrary detention; 4. that immediate steps be taken to end the harassment of lawyers and judges; and, 5. Coup authorities are obliged to adhere to the African Union Agreement, reinstate Egypt’s democratically-elected institutions and ensure the strict adherence to the human rights agreements to which Egypt is signatory. To the international community:
1. that the United Nations and the African Union offer their good offices to mediate between the leaders of the military coup and the leaders of the government elected in 2012, to the end of seeking a restoration of the government elected by the people of Egypt in 2012; and, 2. that the appropriate bodies of the United Nations and the African Union urgently review the situation of human rights in Egypt both generally, and, specifically in relation to the treatment of Mr. Morsi. To civil society:
1. that civil society actors take steps to increase knowledge and understanding of individuals’ rights under Egyptian and international law; 2. that civil society actors take steps consistent with Egyptian and international law to ensure the authorities in Egypt, including the judicial and legal authorities, respect international human rights law; and 3. that civil society actors within Egypt as well as international civil society actors continue to closely monitor the situation in Egypt and especially the trial of President Morsi with the view towards ensuring respect for international human rights law.
International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
13
http://www.icfr.info
Excerpts from the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights 167 State Parties - Egypt ratified on 14 June 1982
Article 9
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. 2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. 3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement. 4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful. 5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Article 14
1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the
interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing; (c) To be tried without undue delay; (d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it; (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the
International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
14
language used in court; (g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. 4. In the case of juvenile persons, the procedure shall be such as will take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation. 5. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. 6. When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the nondisclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him. 7. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.
Article 25
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
http://www.icfr.info
Excerpts from the African Charter on Human and Peoples› Rights 53 State Parties - Egypt ratified on 20 March 1984
Article 7
1. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: (a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; (b) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; (c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; (d) the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. 2. No one may be condemned for an act or omission which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed. No penalty may be inflicted for an offence for which no provision was made at the time it was committed. Punishment is personal and can be imposed only on the offender.
Article 6
Every individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained.
Article 13
1. Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law. 2. Every citizen shall have the right of equal access to the public service of his country. 3. Every individual shall have the right of access to public property and services in strict equality of all persons before the law.
International Coalition for Freedoms & Rights
15
http://www.icfr.info