COMMUNICATION No 641/16
Abdel Azeem Ibrahim Muhammad
V
Arab Republic of Egypt
Decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
on a Complaint submitted to it.
Communication No. 641/16 – Dr. Abdel Azeem Ibrahim Mohamed
against the Arab Republic of Egypt.
Summary of the Complaint :
1. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
(the Secretariat) received on 4 August 2016 a Complaint filed by the
European Alliance Organization, the Aman Organization, Dr. Sumaya
Oussama Ahmed Abdeladim and another person who requested anonymity
(the Complainants), on behalf of Mr. Abdeladim Ibrahim Mohamed (the
victim).
2. The Complaint was lodged against the Arab Republic of Egypt (the
Respondent State), a State Party to the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights (the African Charter). 1
3. The Complainants provide a historical overview of the political situation in
the Respondent State following the "Coup d'état" of 3 July 2013. They allege
that the coup plotters discriminated against part of the indigenous
population by trying to eliminate them. Prisoners were tortured, and others
were subjected to enforced disappearance." They also claim that the
Respondent State denied detainees the right to a fair trial and "turned Egypt
into a large open-air prison to terrorise the Egyptian people".
4. Regarding the victim, the Complainants aver that he is a 43-year-old Egyptian
citizen and father of three (3) children, a specialist in internal medicine and
the Director of the Town Gas Company's Medical Centre.
5. The Complainants allege that on 24 July 2013, at 14:00, the police stopped
the victim at his work place, while he was making an intervention as to
whether the police had received a warrant for the arrest of his colleague, Dr.
Mohamed Mahmoud Al-Zanniti, as well as the reasons for his arrest.
1
Egypt ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Charter) on 20 March 1984.
6. The Complainants claimed that the victim had committed no crime other
than intervening to seek clarification during the arrest of his colleague. They
added that the charges against the victim were spurious, including
kidnapping a police officer.
7. The Complainants allege that the victim was arrested without an arrest
warrant and that the warrant was issued three hours after his arrest. They
added that the arrest warrant did not include the name of the prosecutor
who issued it; the date of issue and the period of validity; the name of the
person to be arrested; or the evidence allowing the prosecutor to issue an
arrest warrant.
8. The Complainants contend that the victim was tortured, beaten,
electrocuted, sexually assaulted and raped while in detention, but the
prosecutor has refused to investigate these allegations.
9. The Complainants also argue that the Respondent State arrested the victim's
three children.
10. The Complainants assert that the victim was tried by a "Special Court for
political opponents". They allege and specify that on 9 September 2014, the
victim was sentenced to five years of criminal imprisonment, a judgment
confirmed by the Court of Cassation on 11 April 2015 by judgment order No.
9585/2013.
11. The Complainants claim that "the victim was deprived of his right to enter a
plea and defend himself, which caused him material and moral damage".
12. The Complainants contend that the victim "has exhausted all local remedies
until a final judgment was rendered against him". They further indicate that
court decisions have been politicised.
13. The Complainants point out that the Complaint has not been submitted to
any other international dispute settlement body.
Alleged Violations :
14. In the view of the Complainants, the Respondent State violated Articles 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and Article 19 of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights.
Prayers
15. The Complainants requested the African Commission on Human and
Peoples' Rights (the African Commission) to:
a. Call for the establishment of a neutral and impartial international court
based outside the Arab Republic of Egypt to try the victim for the spurious
charges concocted by the coup authority, so that the defence can refute
all suspicions and acquit him, because the Egyptian judicial system is now
devoid of the principles of international justice, including independence
and impartiality;
b. Request the release of the victim, and
c. Order the Egyptian authorities to compensate the victim to the tune of 50
million US dollars for the crimes committed against the victim.
Procedures :
16. The Commission’s Secretariat received the Complaint on 14 August 2016 and
acknowledged receipt on 5 October 2016.
17. In a letter dated 10 October 2016, the Secretariat requested clarification of
the Complaint in accordance with Rule 93(4) of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure.
18. On 17 October 2016, the Complainants submitted the requested
clarifications and the Secretariat acknowledged receipt on 25 October 2016.
19. The Communication was considered by the Commission at its 59th Ordinary
Session from 21 October to 4 November 2016.
20. The Commission, by a letter dated 9 November 2016, requested the
Complainants to provide evidence and arguments on admissibility within two
(2) months in accordance with Rule 105 (1) of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure.
African Commission on Human Rights’ Analysis on Strike Out:
21. Rule 105(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure provides that when the
Commission has decided to be seized of a Communication pursuant to the
present Rules, it shall promptly transmit a copy of the Complaint to the
Respondent State. It shall simultaneously inform the Complainant of the
decision on seizure, and request the Complainant to present evidence and
arguments on admissibility within two (2) months.
22. Rule 113 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure provides that where a time
limit is set for a particular submission, either party may apply to the
Commission for an extension of the period stipulated, and the Commission
may grant the application.
23. In this case, the Complainant was invited to provide evidence and arguments
on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months from the
date of notification of the decision on seizure, which expired on 10 January
2017. However, the Complainant did not provide any evidence or arguments
within the time limit.
24. Approximately more than six (6) years after the expiry of the time limit for
the submission of evidence and arguments, no evidence or arguments have
been submitted by the Complainant regarding the admissibility of the
Communication.
25. There is also evidence in the file that the Complainant received the letter
granting him additional time to submit evidence and arguments on
admissibility and was reminded to provide evidence, but the Commission did
not receive any response.
26. In the light of the above, the Commission considers that the Complainant
has shown no interest in following up this Communication.
27. It should be noted that the Commission's jurisprudence has already struck
out some Communications for lack of interest on the part of the
Complainants. Examples include Communication 15/594 - Mohamed
Ramadan Mahmoud v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Communication 612/16 Ahmed Mohamed Ali v. Arab Republic of Egypt and Communication 387/10
- Kofi Yamanian v. Republic of Togo.
Decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights:
28. On the basis of its analysis and in view of the above, the Commission decided
to strike out the case for lack of interest on the part of the Complainants in
following up this Communication.