Tools of oppression in egypt by Walaa Ramadan

TOOLS OF OPPRESSION IN EGYPT Fact-finding commissions as a tool of oppression International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights

Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................

Section 1: Definition of fact-finding commissions.........................................................................................

Objectives of fact-finding commission ....................................................................................................

Section 2: International standards to create fact-finding commissions........................................................

Section 3: Fact-finding commissions under the military rule.......................................................................

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................

Introduction National experiences in pursuit of truth, reconciliation and justice all over the world are the major concrete facts that form the history of transitional justice. The stages of such experiences in any country constitute, in terms of material paths, the vivid moments that secure transitional justice. Though the different stages of the transitional justice route obviously belong to independent systems, they all have features in common, such as the seeking truth, reparation, and future planning. In Egypt, after the military coup, those concerned with human rights, and the deteriorated situation of the country, have been demanding the establishment of international fact-finding commissions in order to investigate the state crimes against peaceful demonstrators protesting against the coup that toppled the first elected civilian president, Mohamed Morsi. Anti-coup protests have been associated with violations by post-coup institutions, especially the violent bodies of the police and military. Too much blood has been shed, thousands arbitrarily arrested and hopes for justice have been wrecked on the rock of unfair judges biased towards the oppressor – the army and police, rather than the oppressed and the law. This situation prompted the need for a fact-finding commission whose role would be significantly important to examine facts, disclose findings to public opinion, and to have justice delivered. However, such anticipation was in vain as the military managed to tame this tool through faking a fact-finding commission, even if it is legally outlined and established on high principles on paper. This report sheds light on the guidelines and roles of fact-finding commissions, as well as their supposed terms of reference within an explicit legal framework, domestically and internationally. It will also display limitations of the fact-finding commission assigned by the military regime to investigate the violations committed after the 30th of June events and the military coup, shifting it from a fact-finding commission to a tool of oppression, whose reports will not, on any account, be relied upon after being set up, at the first place, on false principles.

This file is divided into three sections: • In the first section, the definition of fact-finding commissions is explained. •

In the second section, the standards and values of fact-finding commissions are displayed and

-- -

discussed. •

In the third section, the abuses of the fact-finding commission appointed by the military regime ----

are pointed out, showing how it was converted to a tool of oppression.

Section 1: Definition of fact-finding commissions Nature, objectives, composition and autonomy of fact-finding commissions What is the right to the truth? Victims of gross human rights abuses and blatant breaches against international humanitarian law, as well as their relatives, are eligible for receiving effective treatment. This encompasses the right to know the truth of violations inflicted, as well as paying special tribute to testimonies of victims. These commissions acknowledge their testimonies after a long-term inspection and questioning. It also has the right to take part in international criminal prosecutions and reparation through its findings and recommendations. Fact-finding commissions yield quite effective and efficient output when incorporated in a comprehensive transitional justice strategy promoting reparation, criminal prosecutions and institutional reform policies.

Aspects of the right to the truth The right to truth is applied on many forms of state violations against citizens. The international community is increasingly paying attention to such aspects of the right to the truth. Accordingly, this right encompasses many aspects such as: 1.

Such right is related to a remedy, in addition to conducting prompt and effective investigation,

-------verifying facts, disclosing facts to public opinion and the right to reparation. 2.

Victims and their families have imprescriptible right to the truth about violations inflicted upon

--------their relatives and identity of the perpetrators as well as timing of the crime.

Definition of a fact-finding commission Fact-finding commissions are officially sanctioned, temporary, non-judicial commissions investigating facts and human rights violations and their repercussions1 through paying due attention to victimsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; testimonies and providing them with recognition after long-term inspection. Fact-finding commissions can contribute to criminal prosecutions and reparation by its findings and recommendations. Fact-finding commissions could be stateempowered commissions, established by virtue of a law issued within the legal powers of the state (president, prime minster, speaker of the parliament); commissions formed as part of a peace agreement between internal 1â&#x20AC;&#x192; Priscilla B. Hayner, Unspeakable Truths

parties; or between such parties and the United Nations as a supervisory, non-judicial and non-parliamentary body, or a mediator, between the state and society.

Objectives of fact-finding commissions Fact-finding commissions share specific objectives with regard to interests of the victims, including: • Restoring recognition of inherent human dignity. • Restoring citizenship to the individual. • Investigating and unleashing the real past of grave human rights violations as well as acknowledging --them publicly • Repairing collective and individual damages.

Fact-finding commissions share specific objectives with regards to society, including: • Breaking taboos and prohibitions haunting society regarding gross violations as well as dispelling-the culture of fear and replacing it with a culture of acknowledging them. • Publicly recognising citizens’ right to hear and be acquitted with the past of flagrant human rights ---violations, express their opinions and holding public dialogues.

Objectives of fact-finding commissions in revealing the truth of violations: • Impeding blatant human rights violations through inspection, collecting clues, evidence, proofs and --testimonies from all varied sources. • Analysing these in view of standards of human rights international law and international humanitarian --law according to each case. • Analysing them in view of public or private relevant contexts and in terms of their direct and indirect --impacts on victims and society. • Documenting them as part of the historical record of violations to maintain legacy of individuals and --groups.

Objectives of fact-finding commissions with regards to democratic culture Despite their varied respective contexts characterised with transition from authoritarianism to democracy, or from war to peace, fact-finding commissions agree to enrich democratic culture in terms of its humanitarian, rights-oriented, social and political aspects, through: • Enhancing, creating or fostering an atmosphere that enhances a free and proper dialogue and --debate over the history of society, or nation, as well as the way it dealt with violations. • Promoting dialogue between specialists and academics around the contexts of violations and the --role of the state and groups in violence issues. • Fostering artistic literary works and different genres of expression. • Disseminating, analysing and commenting on events and facts associated with transitional justice --through auditory and visual media as well as press.

Objectives of fact-finding commissions with regards to promoting the rule of law: Fact-finding commissions, regardless of their varied experiences, share dynamics of transition to establish peace, rule of law and democracy, to generate legal, political and intellectual output, through: • Studying and analysing characteristics of legal and constitutional guarantees pertaining to --enhancing separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers. • Scrutinising shortcomings, weaknesses and gaps in the legal systems in form and content alike --regarding the protection of human rights, right to life, treatment, detention and fair trial. • Analysing working methods of apparatuses and systems associated with security governance and --criminal prosecution alongside legal monitoring practiced over them.

Given the noble mission and moral value of the commissioners, factfinding commissions commonly serve as a robust suggestive strength to participate in: • Fostering political, civil and academic dialogue nationwide to reinforce constitutional guarantees, --as countries usually initiate the preliminary measures of transitional justice by reviewing their national constitutions or after passing through the transitional stage. • Developing solutions for introductory institutional reforms of the judiciary to foster guarantees of its --independence as well as boosting its protective role in the field of justice and human rights. • Providing answers to the development of state public policies regarding the rule of law and security --governance.

• Offering alternative suggestions to reform and develop systems associated with criminal prosecution, fair trial and prisons. • Proposing suggestions to boost the role of parliament with regard to combating violations and --censorship over the work of state-run apparatuses. • Developing intermediary approaches in the settlement of disputes to ensure the practice of civil --and political rights.

Objectives of fact-finding commissions with regard to strengthening the civil society Fact-finding commissions effectively take part in developing mechanisms and roles of civil society as transitional justice experiences rendered different contribution to development and enhancement of the civil society. Such examples include: • Some fact-finding commissions are an extension to movements initiated by some human rights --activists and victims’ next-of-kin. Many consist of heads of human rights organisations. • Some fact-finding commissions were formed as result of profound consultations by representatives --of civil society organisations and geared by dynamics of victims and the next-of-kin of persons --unaccounted for. • Fact-finding commissions managed to clear the atmosphere for founding new associations --concerned with legacy and collective reparation, and following their recommendations. • Generally speaking, experiences of fact-finding commissions rendered a broader sphere for --civil society organisations, associations and events to interact with issues of truth, justice and --reconciliation, as well as dynamics for establishing the rule of law on one hand, while they pose --new challenges for them to renew and develop their approaches.

Objectives of fact-finding commissions with regard to bolstering the culture of human rights Fact-finding commissions participate in hosting broad dialogues tackling the culture of human rights, in addition to contributing to launch high-profile public initiatives and policies through its recommendations, such as: • Calling for planning a national plan incorporating all parties: state, civil society and universities to --address the issue of human rights education. • Developing sustainable training programs to help judges and employees assigned to enforce laws --and relevant systems. • Disseminating reports and recommendations of fact-finding commissions in different forms --sufficient to spread them widely.

Section 2: International standards to create factfinding commissions Some UN commissions and other conventions have stated the concept of the right to truth and the significance of fact-finding commissions, whether explicitly through calling for effectuating it, or only addressing its general outline, without spelling out into details. One of the most important guidelines established by the Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity, in its first principle, is that states have an obligation to “ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about violations”. Likewise, Principle 4 states that “irrespective of any legal proceedings, victims and their families have the imprescriptible right to know the truth about the circumstances in which violations took place and, in the event of death or disappearance, the victims’ fate.” This is also set forth by the Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention of the year 1949 in Article No. 33 and Article No. 32: “In the implementation of this section, the activities of the High Contracting Parties, of the Parties to the conflict and of the international humanitarian organisations mentioned in the Conventions and in this Protocol shall be prompted mainly by the right of families to know the fate of their relatives”. Similarly, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance affirms that the right to truth is an applicable right, per se. The European Court declares state failure to conduct an effective investigation to provide clarifications on the fate and whereabouts of persons disappeared amid life-threatening circumstances is regarded as a continuing violation to its procedural obligation. It also indicates the necessity to identify the perpetrators of these violations and bring investigation proceedings accessible to victims’ next-to-kin. The European Court of Human Rights asserted the right to truth and right to life, justifying this correlation by the danger threating the missing person. Some certain national courts, such as the Federal Criminal Court in Argentina, established the right of victims of gross violations to know the truth, adding that the right to know the truth is a main cause for administering justice, explaining history, repairing victims, and impeding reoccurrence of these violations in the future. These trials were called “Truth Trials.” Moreover, the Constitutional Court of Colombia declared in the issue of Justice and Peace Law that even priority policy to participate in demobilisation of illegal armed groups does not nullify state’s obligation to seek truth about the disappeared persons2 .

2 The Constitutional Court of Columbia- Gustavo Gallón Giraldo y Otros v. Colombia, Sentencia No. 370/2006-C; May, 2006) Enforced disappearance, investigation progress and fate of missing persons.

How to create a fact-finding commission Commissions are formed during periods of political change such as the end of an authoritarian regime or a resolution related to an armed conflict. Peace agreements and democratisation negotiations usually include an obligation to establish a fact-finding committee. Fact-finding commissions are based on varied benchmark systems, but they share human rights principles, rule of law and democratic values, mainly represented in: • International Human Rights Law. • International Humanitarian Law. • Provisions and rulings of regional human rights courts. • Summary of jurisprudential and legal perspectives of high-profile lawmakers and relevant --experts. • Frequent briefs and findings of fact-finding commission. • National legal requirements not contradicting with International Human Rights Law and --International

Humanitarian

Law.

• Values and principles of democratic culture. • Principles of human rights ingrained in religious beliefs, national culture and local cultures.

Key characteristics of fact-finding commissions First: Integration with criminal justice; as courts of law usually concentrate on events associated with an individual case depending on evidence, while fact-finding commissions complement this approach through proving the historical and social context of violations. Analysis conducted by these commissions helps in understanding backgrounds of events subject of violations and surrounding context. Second: Emphasising flagrant human rights violations; as fact-finding commissions focus on protecting the right to life and bodily integrity. These investigations include torture crimes, enforced disappearance, extrajudicial killings, forced displacement and physical violence. Over the course of time, the role of factfinding commissions has been expanded to include crimes against humanity, war crimes and corruptionrelated economic crimes as part of a broader sphere of situations of totalitarian exploitation and systematic violations. Third: Investigation duration; contrary to parliamentary or government commissions, fact-finding commissions carry out their work over a long span of time that may last for decades. This allows fact-finding commissions a chance to better analyse historical patterns of systemic violations or human rights abuses. Fourth: Fact-finding commissions extract and disclose a mass of evidence showing gross violations committed and investigated over a long period of time. The commissions may gather a tremendous amount

of violations directly from witnesses, archives and other resources. Fifth: Survivors and victims are the main sources of information for the fact-finding commissions; therefore, many commissions were legally mandated to ensure safeguarding and protection of the victims. Sixth: Fact-finding commissions work on the assumption that victims will tell the truth, but they bear in mind that some will not. Thus, one of the main tasks of fact-finding commissions is to verify facts and events during the course of their investigations.

Pre-requisites to ensure a powerful fact-finding commission: Fact-finding commissions should establish credibility, as societies shortly relieved from authoritarian regimes are accustomed to ineffective and partial investigations to conceal evidence and information of crimes committed. Credibility of fact-finding missions can be enhanced through the basic parameters below: 1.

Selecting members with a good moral and professional reputation.

Ensuring full independence from any political interference.

Adopting transparent fact-finding measures.

Holding dialogue with civil-societies, especially victimsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; organisations.

Receiving support and cooperation from stakeholders, particularly from national political authorities and government agencies, in addition to provision of necessary resources. During their tenure, commissions depend on the confidence of political leadership and civil society to-solve arising problems in support of its mission.

Gaining respect of societies along with social and political powers, as fact-finding commission is required over all stages of its work, from establishment to submitting fina l reports, to give due care to outreach approaches with the society to ensure that its mission is

understood and the

local society is able to render its feedback, remarks and ideas to the commission for the purpose of enriching its work and facilitating its tasks. 7.

Observing implementation of code of ethics while pursuing its duties, as the core criteria of human rights should be taken into consideration in the course of investigation, evidence collection and public communication. Additionally, ensuring integrity and adopting the highest-moral and professional standards at all times. Moreover, fact-finding commissions should, at debut of its work, declare clearly and explicitly a set of operational basic values and principles.

Autonomy of fact-finding commissions: The commission, along with its personnel, should pursue their duties without any interference, except for conforming to the national legal framework and its legal mandate. Commissioners and personnel should practice their powers without fear, favouritism or bias. Practically, commission’s autonomy is measured by its ability to implement its legal mandate away from any pressures or undue influence, or independence on any other institution or person. The following requirements are essential to achieve commission’s autonomy: • Appointing commission members transparently. • Providing legal guarantees to avoid displacement of commission members without a fair cause. • Protecting commission members against any threat or retaliation. • Enjoying comprehensive financial, administrative and operational independence.

Jeopardies of political dependence A fact-finding commission should spare facing any biased claims that might undermine its efficiency and weaken its ability to address the causes of the conflict. Therefore, it should be free of any members that are attached to any suspicious or dubious links to the subject of investigation.

Administrative and financial autonomy Financial autonomy: Fact-finding commissions should be financially autonomous, having the independent right over all its financial and budgetary decisions, in addition to allocating a reasonable budget to the commissioners who are solely entitled to run the commission, not to mention authorising them to secure more funds. Administrative autonomy: Commissioners should be eligible to construe interpretation of their mandate, in addition to setting priorities and means adopted to execute investigations and make staffing decisions without state interference in this regard.

Selection criteria of commissions: The following considerations should be taken into account when selecting fact-finding commissioners: •

Size of the commission: The number of members should be taken into consideration to maintain fair representation of the society as well as constitute sustainable and manageable group.

•

Equitable representation: Appointments should largely represent different perspectives and backgrounds to avoid bias (or an appearance of bias).

•

Human rights achievement record: Each member should possess a flawless record of --accomplishments in human rights void of any involvement in criminal activities, including human rights violations or acts of corruption.

•

Impartiality: Eligibility of candidates for the commission membership must be verified to rule out any --questionable ties with the institutions or subject matters under inquiry. While it is common to appoint --state employees in fact-finding commissions, this process must be carried out in a way maintaining --the autonomy and integrity of the commission through suspending their former government positions.

•

Gender: It is important to incorporate standards guaranteeing gender representation while selecting commission staff. Having female commissioners ensures a supporting and positive environment to female victims.

•

Full-time commitment: Commissions cannot work effectively on a part-time basis, therefore national commissioners should be required to work full-time without doing any other job or undertaking any other duty that may contradict with the interests of the commission work.

Guidelines to maintain autonomy of fact-finding commissions Adhering to the following standards and guidelines ensure commission’s autonomy: •

It is the duty of state-affiliated agencies to respect the commission’s autonomy; help and protect the commission for the sake of its impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness.

•

Effective, efficient and impartial investigations depend on commission’s financial security and organisational

•

professionalism.

Commissions members and employees should not be (or perceived as being) biased to any political party, including those supported by government agencies.

•

Commissioners should work full time for the commission.

•

Commission should receive adequate funding to carry out its tasks in accordance with highest standards and participate in identifying its resources.

•

Commissions should be just, responsive, accessible and made up of trained staff and appropriate facilities.

Section 3: Fact-finding commission under the military rule In the wake of the Republican Guards Club events on July 8, 2013, Interim President Adly Mansour ironically issued a decree to form a commission to probe into the incident that left over 50 demonstrators dead3 . The decree did not leave the pipeline for good and did not come into force; evidently, it was just a kind of a national show-off as well as an international message until the interim president issued a decree to establish a national and independent commission to gather facts and evidence, as well as to examine events in the aftermath of the coup d’état from June 30 and the ensuing incidents for the purpose of documenting and chronicling them4 . The republican presidency announced the full composition of the national and independent fact-finding commission to collect information and evidence, and to examine events during the events of June 30, 2013 and its repercussions in order to document and chronicle them. The commission was established pursuant to a republican decree by President Adly Mansour. As per the statement released by the republican presidency, the commission, headed by Dr Fouad Abdel-Moneim Riad, former international judge and law professor, consists of the following members: • Ambassador Abdul Raouf Al Ridi, Egypt’s former ambassador to the United States of America. • Dr Hazem Atlam, Professor of International Law at Ain-Shams University. • Dr Mohamed Badran, Professor of Public Law at Cairo University. • Dr Iskandar Ghattas, former assistant to the Minister of Justice for international cooperation. --According to the republican decree, the commission would collect and document relevant information --and evidence with regard to the said events, particularly: • Setting framework and operating system to carry out its duties. • Holding meetings and interviews, hearing testimonies, and setting up discussions it deemed --necessary. • Analysing and describing events and its repercussions, in addition to identifying their main actors. • Viewing previous investigations. • Presenting facts, information and evidence related to crimes that may have been committed against --citizens and never investigated before. The decree decided that the vice-chairman of the commission would follow up and coordinate with competent bodies and authorities as well as supervise preparation of the final report submitted to the commission before its issuance. The vice-chairman could also act on behalf of the commission’s chairman in his absence or in case he was temporarily hindered to attend. 3 See http://goo.gl/qdnhbL 4 See appendix No. 1- Decree No. 698 of the year 2013 published on the Official Gazette on December 21th, 2013.

The decree also entitled the commission to form a technical secretariat and management to assign necessary duties. Counselor Amr Marawan, assistant of the Minister of Justice, was appointed commission’s general secretary who could attend its meetings, but could not vote. The decree referred to the freedom of commission to resort to officials, experts and professionals it deems fit, from all governmental and non-governmental bodies carrying out its tasks, entitling it to demand supply of all equipment, tools and mechanisms from all ministries and governmental entities to pursue its duties. The decree emphasises cooperation of state authorities and competent bodies with the commission through furnishing it with all relevant information, data, documents and evidence required to fulfill functions the commission has been tasked with. The decree stipulates that the commission will be temporarily headquartered at Shura Council premises to undertake its duties. The commission must deliver its final report and recommendations to the president of the republic no later than 6 months starting from the enactment of such decree. Therefore, it is essential to discuss the nature of this commission, surrounding circumstances and its work, especially that it deals with unprecedented violations in Egyptian modern history that have drastically impacted the Egyptian social fabric. Accordingly, this commission will be highlighted through tackling its policies and establishment circumstances as well as the output of its report as it is the only commission formed after the military coup, hence a score of major drawbacks which surfaced will be clarified through the following points. Such drawbacks casted a cloud over its reports and perspective on the events, particularly that the commission’s chairman and members have repeatedly stated and acted, after the establishment of the commission, in a way reflecting the real purpose behind such commission that was converted into an oppressive tool rather than a fact-finding commission.

First: Commission’s composition Decree No. 698 of the year 2013 to establish the commission did not include any member of international or national civil society organisations. It was exclusively composed of judges, lawmen and academics lacking expertise in monitoring, documentation and fact-finding, in addition to other mechanics required in selecting members of a fact-finding commission. Furthermore, it overlooked the social gender in its initial composition, yet it was modified on January 4, 2014 to include Dr Fatma Khafagi later on5.

5 See Appendix No. 2 of Presidential Decree No. 4 of the year 2014

Second: Commission’s powers Article No. 6 of the decree entitles the commission to resort to officials, experts and professionals, as it deems fit, from all governmental and non-governmental bodies to carry out its tasks. Article No. 7 obligates state authorities and competent bodies to cooperate with the Commission with all relevant information, data, documents and evidence required to fulfill functions the commission has been tasked with. In other words, it should seek to gather information from different sources, including public, medical and morgue records. Such articles explicitly indicate that state authorities are not forced to cooperate with the commission, let alone entitle the commission to question current state institutions and officials or those holding office, whether formally or informally, in times of such abuse.

Third: Commission and the right to truth Commission members are not overly keen on reserving the right to truth, as Dr Fouad Abdel-Moneim Riad, Chairman of the June 30 fact-finding commission, stated on February 17, 2014, that the report will be submitted to the president, affirming that the fact-finding commission is not entitled to disclose its findings. However, the president would receive them6 . Furthermore, its establishment decree neither referred to publishing or disclosing the commission’s final report, nor contained a text obligating members to publish commission’s output; information and evidence, and bring them before judicial authorities directly to take proper action. Similarly, all commissions formed by the former president, Mohamed Morsi, made the same non-disclosure mistake for their output has not yet been released until now. Such matters are considered a trespass against establishment principles of fact-finding commissions, exposing its work to be labeled as illogical, incomplete and partial. Consequently, a lot of citizens along with opponents to the military in Egypt lost confidence in its work, for how can it deliver evidence and proofs accusing the military for killing hundreds of its opponents, without addressing public opinion or delivering the same proofs to victims or their relatives. Additionally, the decree does not obligate the commission to provide victims and their relatives with full details of the occurrences and details concerning a human rights violation.

6 See http://www.el-balad.com/820839

Fourth: Transparency of commission’s work So far the commission has adopted important fundamentals such as maintaining a transparency principle, making efficient procedures, providing a chance to view commission’s decisions and work. But Adherence to transparency is still unclear; noting that a commission’s establishment decree states it is an independent commission. The decree entitles it to outline a framework for its actions and set a system to fulfill its assigned duties. However, it fails to refer to disclosure; transparency’s core element. Unlike the status quo, the commission, as well as its members, should be introduced to the community to incorporate the public opinion to deal with and help it. Furthermore, the commission and its members would better capitalise on the fact-finding national commission about the January 25 Revolution, whose website can be accessed by citizens for communication, in addition to a well-known headquarters within reach to deal with it. However, this commission followed the wrong suit the fact-finding commission formed during the rule of the ousted president Dr Mohamed Morsi, as it operated without the least transparency level or disclosing details of its reports to the public domain, rendering its work in vain.

Fifth: With regards to committed violations The decree entitles the commission to view former investigations, yet it did not authorise it to order reinvestigating incomplete prosecutions, particularly that the general prosecution was biased and inefficient in its investigations after being a tool of oppression in the hands of the military regime against its dissidents, especially in events involving security forces and civilians. The general prosecution has accustomed, over the last three years, to interrogate protestors only, while policemen who have been systematically abusing them. Law and constitution escaped the interrogation, paying no mind to the hiking death toll amongst protestors. The commission must, therefore, overlook such investigations7 .

Sixth: With regards to fulfilling the commission’s recommendations The decree did not refer to any monitoring indicators or mechanisms to implement its recommendations and decisions made at the completion of its work and submitting its reports to the executive authority. Accordingly, the person responsible for fulfilling the commission’s recommendations should provide guarantees to bring them into effect and declare who will monitor the enforcement process and adherence to the recommendations, etc.

7 See report released by the International Coalition for Freedoms and Rights (ICFR) (General Prosecution as a tool of oppression)

Seventh: Absence of program guaranteeing and safeguarding eyewitnesses The commission cannot proceed with its work, or defend or hear witnesses who are the backbone of its work given the fact that there is no law or resolutions endorsed to protect eyewitnesses to critical events chiefly involving the state and its security apparatuses, particularly that no one can spare the security brutality, sparking panic and fear from state barbarity at the hands of its security apparatuses. Moreover, how commission personnel will be defended against any threats to deter them from giving their testimony or undertake their role in the commission, in addition to securing information, testimonies and documents supplied to commission members.

Conclusion Right to truth is an essential recognised right as it is deemed a natural and genuine indispensable human right, inherently and deeply rooted in the international human rights law, and cannot be infringed or barred by the lapse of time, under the pretext of reconciliation and amnesty or any other concept. It is solely entitled to the victims or their relatives, and subjects of rights. Moreover, it plays a pivotal role in establishing transitional justice and reparation as well as reserving the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s legacy and history while contributing to settling a disturbed interior and security conditions, and closing the conflict chapter to open the chapter of reparation and reconciliation. Nonetheless, the military-formed commission is merely a mock framework, within which the military regime closes the door on any questioning attempts for its atrocities against opponents. After the security apparatuses plotted the coup against the civil political life, the general prosecution was invoked to obey security orders unduly and the judicial authority has been controlled through joining the army in the coup. It was the fact-finding commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s turn to entirely thwart all efforts to unveil the truth or hold the regime accountable for its crimes against human rights and opponents.

Appendices Appendix No. 1 (A) 4 Official Gazette- Issue No. 51 (bis) on December 21th, 2013 Decree issued by President of the Arab Republic of Egypt No. 698 of the year 2013 Interim President of the Republic Having considered the constitutional declaration issued on July 8th, 2013; Based on proposal of the Minster of Foreign Affairs, Transitional Justice and National Reconciliation; and after the approval of the Cabinet; (Article No. 1) A national and independent fact-finding commission shall be formed to collect information and evidence, and to examine events during the events of June 30, 2013, and its repercussions in order to document and chronicle them. The commission shall be headed by Dr Fouad Abdel-Moneim Riad, former international judge and Law Professor, and shall include the members below: • Ambassador Abdul Raouf Al Ridi, Egypt’s former ambassador to the United States of America. • Dr Hazem Atlam, Professor of International Law at Ain-Shams University. • Dr Mohamed Badran, Professor of Public Law at Cairo University. • Dr Iskandar Ghattas, former assistant to the Minister of Justice for international co-operation. (Article No. 2) The Commission shall collect and document relevant information and evidence with regard to the aforementioned events in the previous article, particularly: • Setting framework and operating system to carry out its duties. • Holding meetings and interviews, hearing testimonies, and setting up discussions it deems --necessary. • Analysing and describing events and its repercussions, in addition to mentioning their main actors. • Viewing previous investigations. • Presenting facts, information and evidence related to crimes that may have been committed --against citizens and have never been investigated.

Appendix No. 1 (B) Official Gazette- Issue No. 51 (bis) on December 21, 2013 (Article No. 3) The Vice-Chairman of the Commission shall follow up and coordinate with competent bodies and authorities as well as to supervise preparation of the final report to be submitted to the commission before issuance. The ViceChairman shall also act on behalf of the Commission’s chairman in his absence or in case he is/was temporarily unable to attend. (Article No. 4) The commission is eligible to form a technical secretariat and management and to assign them to necessary duties. Counselor Amr Marawan, assistant to the Minister of Justice, shall be appointed Commission’s general secretary who may attend its meetings, but shall have no vote. (Article No. 5) Required funds to meet Commission’s expenses and activities shall be provided under agreement between Chairman of Commission and Minister of Finance. (Article No. 6) The Commission shall have the freedom to resort to officials, experts and professionals, as it deems fit, from all governmental and non-governmental bodies to carry out its tasks, entitling it to demand supply of all equipment, tools and mechanisms from all ministries and governmental entities to pursue its duties. (Article No. 7) State authorities and competent bodies shall cooperate with the Commission through providing all the relevant information, data, documents and evidence required to fulfill functions the Commission is tasked with. (Article No. 8) The Commission shall be temporarily headquartered at Shura Council premises to undertake its duties. (Article No. 9) The Commission shall submit its final report and recommendations to the President of the Republic no later than six months starting from the enactment of such a decree. (Article No. 10) This decree shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall take effect one day following the date of publication. Issued at the Presidency of the Republic on Safar 18th, 1435 AH (Corresponding to December 21th, 2013 AD).

Appendix No. 1 (B) 2 Official Gazette- Issue No. 1 (bis) on January 4th, 2014 Decree issued by President of the Arab Republic of Egypt No. 4 of the year 2014 Interim President of the Republic Having considered the constitutional declaration issued on July 8, 2013; And Presidential Decree No. 698 of the year 2013 to establish a national and independent commission to gather information and evidence, and to examine events during the events of June 30, 2013; And Based on proposal of Chairman of the Commission; (Article No. 1) Restructuring the commission formed pursuant to said Presidential Decree No. 698 of the year 2013 to be headed by Dr Fouad Abdel-Moneim Riad, former international judge and law professor, and include the members below: • Dr Iskandar Ghattas, former assistant to the Minister of Justice for international cooperation. (Vice--Chairman) • Dr Hazem Atlam, Professor of International Law at Ain-Shams University. • Dr Mohamed Badran, Professor of Public Law at Cairo University. • Dr Fatma Khafagi, Director of Ombudsperson Office at the National Council for Women. (Article No. 2) This decree shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall take effect one day following the date of publication. Issued at the Presidency of the Republic on Rabi’ Awwal 3rd, 1435 AH (Corresponding to January 4th, 2014 AD).

Dar Al Kotob Book Number 65/2014, General Organization for Government Printing Offices 25368 O 2013-1557