'AFRICAN UNION
UNION AFRICAINE
UNIAO AFRICANA
Afn·can Commission on Human & Peoples ' Rights
Commission Africaine des Droits de /'Homme & des Peuples
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, Western Region,P. 0 . Box 673, Banjul, TheGambia
Tel: (220) 4410505/4410506; Fax: (220) 4410504
E-mail: au-ban·uI africa-union.or, • Web www.ach .or,
Communication 614/16
Mr. Eid Mohammed lsmil Dahrooj and two others (represented by
AED and 4 others)
V
Arab Republic of Egypt
.Adopted by the
.African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
during the 23"' Extra-Ordinary Session.from 13"' to 22"" February 2018
Banjul, The Gambia
A
L_)o=.J}-••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Commissioner Soyata Maiga
Chairperson ofthe Afiican Commissio
on Human and Peoples' Rights
·~
® ·-·~ \
u-U~
I
~
l
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
. Dr. Mary Maboreb
Secretary to the Afiican Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Communication 614/16 - Mr. Eid Mohammed lsmil Dahrooj and two others
(represented by AED and 4 others) v Arab Republic of Egypt
Summary of the Complaint
1. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the
Secretariat) received a Complaint on 31 March 2016 from AED and ors (the
Complainants) on behalf of the First Victim, Mr. Eid Mohammed Ismil Dahrooj,
the Second Victim, Mr. Abdul Rahman Eid Mohammed Ismail Dahrooj and the
Third Victim, Mr. Salah Eid Mohammed Ismail Dahrooj against the Arab
Republic of Egypt (the Respondent State).1
2. The Complainants aver that the Second a d Thir Victims are"the children of the
First Victim.
3. The Complainants submit tha
represent them in this case.
en authorized by the Victims to
4. The Complainants aver that on 03 July 2013, a discriminatory military coup took
place in the Respondent State which v·o ated al human rights, and sought to
eliminate a specific sector of the Egyptian ociety, being the sector that opposed
the coup against the government that was fairly and freely elected by the peoples
of Egypt. THey allege that the coup leaders ( ereafter, the Authorities) who
subsequently assumed leadership of the Respondent State committed
d1scnminatory segregation of a sector of Egyptians through killing, enforced
disappearances, and t0rture of prisoners and inmates, including violating the
rights of women, children and minors in detention. They aver that the lawyers
who represented victims were falsely accused and arrested in order to force them
to discontinue their much needed legal services, which infringes the Victims'
right to defence.
5. The Complainants also claim that the Authorities violated freedom of thinking,
especially that of university lecturers, and generally turned Egypt into a large
prison to terrify the Egyptian people, through lawlessness and in blatant breach
of international human rights law.
6. More specifically, the Complainants allege that the family of the Victims is one of
several families that suffered at the hands of the Authorities after the coup. They
aver that the First Victim, who is an Egyptian national, was born in 1949 in
Alexandria City, Egypt, and worked as General Manager of financial and
1 The Arab Republic of Egypt ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on 20 March 1984.
~~
~c11.t1A1 r ..~
~-.,.,
( ({tii,,'\\ \
'\',
administrative management of taxes before his retirement. He was allegedly
arrested on 14 May 2014, and the Authorities falsified charges against him accusing him of spying for Hamas in Palestine, a crime the Complainants claim
he knows nothing about.
7. The Complainants further aver that the First Victim's trial before a 'special circle'
was devoid of natural justice and that he was sentenced on 16 May 2016 for life,
and kept in Scorpio Prison, which is a high security prison.
8. The Complainants allege that while in detention at the Scorpio prison, the First
Victim was tortured and subjected to inh mane treatment, including: being put
in a tiny, poorly ventilated cell with no bed; denial of visitation rights; denial of
access to medication and clean water; denial of access to news~apers and writing
materials; prevention from carrying money; and denial of medical care even
though he was injured after he was arreste . The Complainants allege that the
First Victim suffered from serious infections in his limbs and nerves, as well as
inflammation of his stomach and vertebrae of his neck and back.
9. The Complainants aver that the Prison Service denied the First Victim visitation
rights for several months and when it was finally, allowed, the visitation only
lasted for fifteen minutes through a sound proof glass panel with the Prison
Service recording the conversation between hlm and his family. The
Complainants aver that this policy termed 'slow murder' made the First Victim
declare a hungel'>strike and he was thereafter threatened with 'liquidation' by the
Head of the Prison Services if he refuses to discontinue the hunger strike. It is
alleg d"'that the Prison Service also thr atened his wife and children, indicating
that they will falsify charges against them.
10. The Complainants aver that the Second Victim who is also an Egyptian national,
born on 18 March 1988, is a Dentist and Faculty member at the Faculty of
Dentistry at the Universi of Pharos. He lives in Alexandria, Egypt, and was
allegedly arrested and detained on 14 May 2015, the same day his father was
arrested. He was thereafter allegedly confined in Borg El Arab Prison after the
Security Forces had allegedly accused him of being a member of a banned group.
11. The Complainants allege that he was later tried in a trial devoid of natural justice
and sentenced to an imprisonment term of two years. In prison, he was allegedly
subjected to all kinds of torture including beatings, stripped, burning of scientific
references in his personal library and research for his Masters programme.
12. The Complainants submit that the Third Victim, who is an Egyptian national,
was born on 11 November 1996, and a student at the Faculty of Arts in Egy~ t~
/<;~
{{~ -~
was arrested by Security Forces on the street on 24 July 2014. The Complainants
contend that the Third Victim is a minor, less than 18 years old and his arrest
took place without the permission of the Public Prosecutor. The Complainants
allege that following his arrest, he was detained in Wade Natrun Prison after
Security Forces allegedly fabricated charges against him and accused him of
joining a banned group, disturbing public peace, rioting and disturbing public
security.
13. The Complainants additionally submit that the Third Victim was sentenced
without due process to five years' imprisonment on 29 April 2014.
14. Regarding the need to exhaust domestic remedies, the Complainants submit that
the exhaustion of domestic remedies after the coup is totally. impossible, because
following the coup which upstaged the democratically elected government of the
people,2 all those who opposed e coup were arrested, detaine and punished
for exercising their rights, and ha sn sentences \Ilcluding mass deatH penalties
were passed on dissidents.'Tfley ho ever note that former President Mubarak
was released and cleared of any charges.
15. In view of the foregoing, they submit that under the current regime, exhaustion
of domestic remedies is impossible,,,asfue military ·s ruling the country, and that
any judge who shows any independence ft.:.om the military would be punished
by being sacked or removed. Lawyers and attorneys are also not left out of such
punishments as the judiciary in Egypt has collapsed by subduing itself to the
military rules ~ 'court sentences have become politicized'.
16. The ComP.lainants claim that the Complaint has been filed within a reasonable
time in accordance with Article 56(6) of the Charter, after awaiting the
outcome/judgments of the Egyptian courts, and finally that the Complaint has
not been presented before any other international dispute settlement forum for
settlement or adjudication.
17. In view of the foregoing, they allege that the crimes committed by the
Authorities against the Victim and his family include the following: (i)
discriminatory segregation; (ii) elimination of indigenous people; (iii) crime of
torturing of detainees; (iv) violation of detainees' right in the course of trial
resulting in denial of justice; (v) denial of prisoners' rights; (vi) crimes of
enforced disappearances; and (vii) crimes of issuance of harsh sentences without
fairness and justice.
2 It is alleged that a new president and parliament were democratically elected following the peoples' revolution of
25 January 2011.
Articles alleged to have been violated
18. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent State has violated Articles 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 19, 60 and 61 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights.
Procedure
19. The Secretariat received the Complaint on 31 March 2016 and acknowledged
receipt on 12 April 2016.
20. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) was
seized of the Communication during the 58 th Ordinary Session of the
Commission, held from 06 to 20 April 2016.
21. By letter and note verbale dated 04 May 2016 the Complainant and the
Respondent State were informed of the clecision to be seized and the
Complainant was requested to present'evidence and arguments on admissibility
within two (2) months.
22. By letter and note verbale dated 5 July 2016 the Complainant and the
Respondent ?tate were informed that the <Sommu ication was deferred during
the 20th Extra-Ordinary Session, pendin receipt of the Complainant's
submissions on admissibility.
23. By letter and note verbale dated 23 November 2016 the Complainant and the
Respondent State were informed that the Communication was deferred during
the 59th Ordinary Session, ,eending receipt of the Complainant's submissions on
admissibility. ~y the same communication, the Complainant was reminded to
submit submissions on admissibility within one month, failing which it would be
struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.
24. By letter and note verbale dated 11 July 2017 the Secretariat informed the Parties
that the Communication was deferred during the 60th Ordinary Session.
25. By note verbale dated 02 August 2017 and received at the Secretariat on 14
August 2017, the Respondent State indicated that the Complainant had not made
their submissions on admissibility within the required time frame and requested
that the Communication be struck out.
26. By letter and note verbale dated 20 September 2017 the Secretariat informed the
Parties that the Complainant had been granted an additional thirty (30) days
within which to submit on admissibility, failing which the Communication
would be struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.
27. In a note verbale dated 27 October 2017 received at the Secretariat on 24
November 2017, the Respondent State indicated that the additional time had
expired and thus requested the Commission to strike out the Communication.
Analysis of the Commission to strike out
28. Rule 105(1) of the Commission's Rules ofyrocedure establishes that when the
Commission has decided to be seized of a Communication, it shall request the
Complainant to present arguments on Admissibility within two (2) months.
29. Rule 113 provides that when a deadline is fixed for particular submission,
"I:
either party may apply to ~e Commission for extension of the period stipulated.
The Commission may grant an extension of time for a period n t longer than one
(1) month.
30. In this case, the Compla' ant was requested to present evidence and arguments
on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months from the date
of notification of the seizure decision, which had expired on 04 July 2016.
However, the'Complainant did not present any evidence and arguments within
the- stipulated time. The said periocl was extended by the Commission for a
petj.ocl of--30 calenaar days and sam had expired on the 23 December 2016.
31. During its 22nd xtraordinary: Session which took place from 29 July to 07
August 2017, in Da,kar, R«;J>ublic of Senegal, the Commission decided, because it
was not satisfie that
Complainant has received the earlier correspondences
based on the evidence on record, to granted the Complainant 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.
ilie
32. More than three (3) months have lapsed since the expiry of the last extended
period and no evidence and arguments have been submitted by the Complainant
on the admissibility of the Communication. There is also evidence on record that
the Complainant has received the letter granting further extension of time to
submit on admissibility.
33. In light of the above, the Commission therefore finds that the Complainant has
shown no interest in prosecuting this Communication.
34. 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 Mohammed Ali Subaie v. the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Communication 412/12L Journal Echos du Nord v. Gabon
and Communication 387/10: Kofi Yamagnane v. The Republic of Togo, which
were similarly struck out for want of diligent prosecution.
Decision of the Commission
35. In view of the above, the Commission decides to strike out the Communication
for lack of diligent prosecution.
Done at the 23rd Extra-Ordinary Session of the Commission held in Banjul, The
Gambia from 13 to 22 Februc!,l'Y 2018