Statement death sentences military trials

A STATEMENT REGARDING FINAL DEATH SENTENCES THROUGH MILITARY TRIALS IN EGYPT The ICFR has called the Egyptian Government to reject the death sentences issued by military tribunals and to cease referring defendants to military courts, taking into account the codes of fair trials while considering court cases. ICFR has emphasised the urgency of dismissing the death sentences passed by military tribunals against civilians.

On Tuesday 24th March the military tribunal of appeals declined an appeal made by 7 Egyptians sentenced to death and two others to life in prison, for being involved in killing members of the security force in the case known as the Arab Sharkas.

Lawyers of the defendants have protested against the verdict of the military tribunal of appeals at the Haikstep in eastern Cairo. The lawyers insisted that their clients, who are all civilians, did not take part in the attack as they were in custody at the Azouli military prison when the Mustorod Police force was attacked.

ICFR declares that military trial of civilians is an utter transgression of the International Law. As these trials are authorised by the Defense Minister they lack many of the essential pledges for fair trials. In these trials all jurists and members of prosecution have a military rank that obligates them to act according to military regulations. In this case, the Defense Minister has the absolute authority to appoint the jurists according to the recommendations of the Chairman of the Military Judicial Commission. As such, the jurists are not authorised to put on trial those of a higher rank. Accordingly, their sentences are not considered as valid unless attested by an officer. Though this officer is not a member of the court, he has absolute power to cancel, terminate, reduce the verdict, or even demand a retrial.

Thus, these courts do not perform independently and cannot act neutrally even if they intend to. Moreover, military courts do not adhere to the proper procedures in dealing with court cases. Often they do not inform the defendants of their charges and detain them for long periods without notifying their families of the places of detention. In most cases, these places could be unsupervised military jails in a way that obscures investigation concerning practices of violation and torture against detainees. In other cases, the defendants are detained at military barracks which makes it very hard for their lawyers and families to have access in a manner that adds to the suffering of the defendants as in the case of Arab Sharkas.

ICFR contends that boosting national security is enabled through justice and not by tyranny. It believes that stability is fulfilled when governments endeavor to protect and ensure the rights of individuals. In addition, deterring terrorism can only be achieved through just trials that unveil the facts and prosecute the perpetrators.

ICFR confirms that timely justice must ensure a just and a fair trial along with a prompt settlement of the court cases which can be carried out by means of a civil judicial court. Once trials favour promptness over justice, as is the case with military trials, timely justice would turn into acts of retaliation and intimidation.