UNION AFRICAINE
AFRICAN UNION
UNI.AO AFRICANA
�J�' .lb...;il
African Commission on Human & Peoples' Rights
�
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,
Commission Africaine des Droits de t'Homme & des Peuples
Western Region,P. 0.
Box 673, Banjul,
TheGambia
Tel: (220) 441050514410506; Fax: (220) 4410504
E-mail: au-banjul(ii)africa-union.ora.· Web www.achr:,r.ora
C o m m u n i c a t i o n 6 3 7 / 1 6 and 6 3 9 / 1 6
Mr. Mohammed Abdel Hay Faramawy and 2 Ors
(Represented by Dr. Abdel Hay Faramawy and 4
Ors)
v
Egypt
Adopted by the
African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
during the 26"' Extra-Ordinary Session.from 16"' to 3f1" July 2019
Banjul, The Gambia
Dr. Mary Mabore
Secretary to the Aftican Commission on
Human and Peoples• Rights
Decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights on Strike out
Communication 637/16 and 639/16- Mr. Mohammed Abdel Hay Faramawy and 2
Ors (Represented by Dr. Abdel Hay Faramawy and 4 Ors) v The Arab Republic of
Egypt
Summary of the Complaint:
1.
The Secretariat of the African Commission oa Buman and Peoples' Rights (the
Secretariat)
received
2016
Dr.
from
two Complaints
Abdel
Hay
on 26
Faramawy;
September 2016
Mr.
Farooq
Kamel
and 10
October
Mohammed;
the
European Alliance for Human Rights (AED);
N Organisation, and Prof.
Mostafa Metwaly (the Complainantp) on b Ralf of
r. Mo
Faramawy (First Victim), Mr.
Mostafa Abde
ay Far
a
ed Abdel Hay
awy (Secon
Victim)
and Mr Amed farooq Kamel Mohammed (Thiri �ictim).
2.
The
Complaints
are
submitted
against
the
Arab
Republic
of
Egypt
(the
Respondent State) a State Party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights (the African Chart r)}Jlaving ratified the same on 20 March 1984.
3.
The Complainants allege that on 7 March 2013, a military coup took place in
Egypt which violated all human ri
the
Egyptian
people
who
hts and still continues to eliminate a sector of
oppos
the
coup;
that
the
Coup
leaders
have
discriminated against and eliminated a sector of the indigenous people; and have
committed crimes of enforced disappearances, torture of prisoners and detainees
as well as the arrest, detention and persecution of lawyers defending the victims.
4.
The Com:r,1ainants fur-th�
allege that the truth was twisted through the use of
politici zed judges, and the victims of these alleged acts were denied their right to
defence due to the arrest and falsification of allegations
against lawyers who
represent the victims in order to pressurize them to discontinue their relevant
legal services.
5.
1
6.
The Complainants state that the First Victim is a 31 years old Egyptian national, a
teacher by profession and is married with one child; the Second Victim is a 25
years
old
Egyptian national,
a student and
single;
while
the
Third
Victim
is
Egyptian, 30 years old, single and a lawyer.
7.
The
Complainants
submit that sometime
during the month of Ramadan
after
midnight on
15 July 2013
(i.e
when muslims fast throughout the day and only
eat at night and late before down), the Victims went out to dinner at a restaurant
in Nasr City, Cairo. The Complainants state thaj before the Victims arrived the
restaurant, they found a group of people gathered together. In the commotion,
the Victims left their car and went to inquire about the gathering, where they
found a suspected thief caught b� th�*'gro
p a
a wJfo wa
. eing beaten with
sticks.
8.
The Complainants allege
at the Victims rescued the susp,ected thief from the
mob, took him into their car and drove off.,in. order to tak
him to the nearest
hospitals as he was bleeding from the wounds inflicted on him by the mob. The
Complainants also allege-that on their way to fhe,.hospital, the Victim had a tyre
puncture just
9.
lose to a polic
check point.
The Complamants aver that at th
police chec
P,Oint, a Police Officer asked them
whether they are in support of the military coup or against it, and they replied
that they are against the coup. Upon hearing that they are against the Coup, the
police arrested them together with the wounded suspected thief and detained
them in solitaiy confinement at the police station. The Complainants allege that
the police prevented the Victims from communicating with their families or with
their lawyers.
�
I'
10. The ComplaW�ts allege that while in detention, the Police Officer blind folded
the Victims and the suspected thief, administered electric shocks on them and
severely beat them up. That in the process of torturing the suspected thief, the
police
amputated
his
finger.
The
Complainants
add
that
the
Victims
were
tortured because they had said they are against the coup.
11.
The
Complainants
also
allege
that
the
Police
later
fabricated
a
charge
and
charged the Victims with torturing the thief and amputating his finger. They add
that
the
police
department,
invited
who
the
public
personally
prosecutor
conducted
an
that
same
investigation
night
on
to
the
the
police
charge
a:IJ.:d- -
---.
��UM�h�o ��
referred the case to the Court. The Complainants add that the case was re�.1 �
;
'"·��
�
2
O
p
\
AU-UA
ll'
s
,o
�
/
(.:.
'?
<J �
<Ito� 4F�fC�\t(i;. <:;) ,§'-'<
'\:.�.
�� ET Oc"> �
---�-=....-
to the Court after the allegations that those who oppose the coup are torturing
people and cutting off their fingers had been publicized in the pro-coup media.
12. The Complainants submits that during the trial, the suspected thief testified that
while in detention and being tortured, the police forced him to lie and accuse the
Victims
of
being
the
ones
who
tortured
him
and
cut
off
his
finger.
The
Complainants add that the suspected thief testified that the Victims had in fact
saved him from the mob and were en route to the hospital to have him treated of
his wounds when they were arrested and that his finger was cut off by the police.
13. The Complainants submit that notwithstanding the testimony of the thief, the
14. The Complainants state that the Vjctims w re then tra
sferred to Wadi Natrun
prison, where they were allegedly subjected to l11ore torture and unimaginable
humiliation. They allege that at Wadi Natrun Brison:
(i)
The Victims were stripped off their cloth,..ing and then ordered to lie on the
ground with their stomach while the prison Guards walked on them with
their shoes;
(ii)
The Victims had to
uards;
(iii)
The prison cells were ve y narrow and overcrowded, some prisoners slept
while standing on their fee
(iv)
and others took turns in sleeping on the floor;
The cells were also infested with insects and full of water during that very
cold period of the year.
<
(v)
The Victims
wer
refused
access
to
writing
and
reading materials
and
were not allowed to .watch television;
,,,,
(vi)
Tqe- Victims were refusea visits from their family for a whole month, and
when visits wer
gi:anted,
the Victims were subjected
to verbal
abuses
from the prison administrators;
(vii)
After visits, the Victims were forced to defecate in front of prison officers
to make sure that they had not hidden anything through their anus.
15. The Complainants allege further that the Victims were again summoned without
their
Lawyers
being
present and
interrogated
about a case
called
the
Raba' a
Resolution case ( a situation that occurred when the Victims were in prison), and
3
16. The Complainants disclose that there is no independent judicial system at the
moment in Egypt.
17. The
Complainants
finally
allege
that
the
violations
leaders against the Victims include the following:
rights to the administration
committed
(i)
by
the
coup
Violation of the Victims'
of justice; (ii) Hash sentences; (iii) Torture; and (iv)
Violation of the rights of the Victims as detainees.
Articles alleged to have been violated
18. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State has violated Articles 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8 and 19 of the African Charter.
�
Procedure
19. The
Secretariat
received
the
first
Complaint
on
26.
September
and
2016
acknowledged receipt on 4 October 2016, infoqping the Eomplainants that the
Complaint will be
tabled
Session.
Complaint
The
first
before the Commission for consideration at its next
was
registered
as
Communication
The
637 /16.
Commission received the second,Complaint on 10 0ctober 2016 and registered it
as Communi ation 639 / 1 6 .
-J
)
20. The
Commission
considered
the
Complaints
at its
59th
Ordinary
Session
and
decided to join the Complaints based on their similar facts, be seized of it and
granted provisional measures. The decision was transmitted to the Parties on 20
December 2Cr16. The Cornplainants were requested to submit on the admissibility
of the Communication withjp. two (,2) months.
ote Verbale was received from the Respondent State,
which
indicated
that
it
did
not
have
any
record
of
correspondence
on
this
Communication.
22. On 05 February 2018 the Secretariat re-transmitted the initial Complaints as well
as the decision on seizure and provisional measures to the Respondent State.
23. On
23
July
granted
an
2018
the
Parties
extension
of
were
thirty
informed
(30)
days
admissibility of the Communication, failing w
4
that the
within
·
Complainants
which
to
had
submit
been
on
the
the Communication would be
24. On
29
March
indicating
2019
that
the
a
Note
Verbale
extension
of
was
30
received
days
had
from the
expired
Respondent State
and
requested
the
Commission to dismiss the Communication due to its failure of compliance with
the Rules of Procedure and the lack of diligent prosecution on the side of the
Complainants.
Analysis of the Commission on strike out
25. Rule 105(1)
of the Commission's Rules of Procedure establishes that when the
Commission has decided to be seized of a Communication, it shall request the
Complainants to present arguments on Admissibility within two (2) months.
27. In
this
case,
the
Complainants
equested
arguments on the admissibility of the Co
to
present
evidence
unication within two
and
(2) months
from the date of notification of the seizure decision, which period had expired on
20 February 2017. However, the Complainants did not present any evidence and
avguments within the stipulated time.:
28. Given'
at
more
tha
y;ear
had
:)
passed
without
correspondence
from
the
Commission, on 23 July 2018 the €omplainants were granted a further period of
30 calendar days from the date of notification to submit evidence and arguments
on the admissibility of the above-mentioned Communication.
29. One year has lapsed since the expiry of the last extended period and no evidence
and arguments have been submitted by the Complainants.
30. In light of the above, the Commission therefore finds that the Complainants have
shown no interest in prosecuting this Communication.
31. The
Commission
takes
note
of
its
jurisprudence,
including
Communication
594/15: Mohammed Ramadan Mahmoud Fayad Allah v. the Arab Republic of
Egypt,
Communication
612/16:
Ahmed
5
Mohammed
Ali
Subaie
v.
the
-:;::::=,�.....
Republic of Egypt, Communication 412/12: Journal Echos du Nord v. Gabon and
Communication 387 / 1 0 : Kofi Yamagnane v. The Republic of Togo, which were
similarly struck out for want of diligent prosecution.
Decision of the Commission on strike out
6