AFRICAN UNION
UNION AFRICAINE
��, .,�--i,
UNIAO AFRICANA
Afric011 Commi.niOII on l/uman & Peoples' Rights
31 Bij1/o Annex Layout,
®
Kombo North Distnct,
Commission Afnc8ine des Droits de /'Homme & des Peuples
Western Region, P. 0.
Bo>< 673, Banjul.
Th9Gambia
Tel: (220) 4410505/ 441050ti; Fax: (220) 4410504
E-mail: au-baniu'"" -mca-••nion.or"· Web www.achor ora
Communication 603/16
Mrs. Ayatulla Alaa Hosny (represented by Dalia Lotty)
v.
Arab Republic of Egypt
Adopted by the
African Commission on Human ond Peoples' Rights
during the 1� Extra-Ordinary Se&slon, from the 30 July to 8 August 1018
Banjul, The Gambia
d�+ ��\
c;;;.;;;.;;;;;�&,;.�···· .. ·······'...
Chairpenon of the Aftican Commission
on Human and Peoples' Rights
�
) ' .
,.,.u,
.
···:·Mary�·
.
Secmmy to the Aftican Connnisaion on
Human and Peoples' Rights
DECISION OF THE AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES'
RIGHTS ON WITHDRAWAL
Communication 603/16 - Mrs. Ayatulla Alaa Hosny (represented by Dalia
Lotfy) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
Summary of the Complaint
1.
TI1e Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples'
(the
Secretariat)
Ayatulaa
Alaa
received
18
December
2015
(the Complainant), represented by
Hosny
behalf of Hassan
a Complaint on
Mahmoud
Ragab
Al
Qabany
(the
Rights
from
Dalia
Mrs.
Lotfy, on
Victim)
against
the
that
the
Victim,
an
was
arrested
Arab Republic of Egypt (the Respondent State).1
2.
The
Complainant
Egyptian
(the
wife
of
freelance journalist,
January 2015 by State Security
the
born
Victim)
on
asserts
27 June
1983
Police from his house in
61h
on
22
October City.
This arrest, U1e Complainant claims, was carried out by a team of twenty to
thirty
masked
men
who
raided
his
house
and
damaged
its
contents
without presenting any arrest or search warrant. They also failed lo inform
the Victim about the reason for his arrest and arrested the Victim's brother
Ahmed Hosny who was kept incommunicado for 24 hours but was later
released.
3.
111e
Complainant avers
that after
72
hours,
she
was
Victim was held in 6th October City State Security
was
maltreated
and
fainted
from
the
severity
informed
that
the
Department where he
of
the
torture,
which
included beatings on his face and back of his neck, electrocution in various
sensitive parts of his body and stripping him of his clothes. She received
information only after sendin g a fax to the Public Attorney inquiring on the
Victim. The Victim was allegedly tortured to extract false confessions and
he
was
not
allowed
Victim reported
Prosecutor
who
a
legal
representation
during
interrogations.
The
the torture meted out on him during interrogation to the
ignored
the
information
and
failed
to
send
him
to
a
forensic doctor for proper examination.
4.
The
Victim,
non-existing
the Complainant alleges,
offense
in
the
penal
law.
was
His
prosecuted
detention
and
has
accused
been
of a
renewed
every 45 days and he was first transferred t o ' Al Aqrab Prison' in H4 wing
4 for several months before being finally moved to H2 wing 3 where he is
currently held. 111e Complainant avers that a case of espionage for spying
I
The Arab Republic of Egypt ratified the African Chancr on Human and Peoples' Rights on 20 M
�
"
=
-
1984.
I'
for the US and Norway was included in the Victim's case on 7 August 2014
with
another
defendant,
Dr.
Mohamed
Bishr,
a
prominent
university
Professor.
5.
The Complainant asserts that an order for release of the Victim on bail was
granted
on
26
August
However,
2015.
the
State
Security
Prosecution
claimed an appeal, and continued to renew the Victim's detention without
showing
the
Victim's
lawyer
a
copy
of
the
appeal.
TI1e
Complainant's
complaints to the Public Prosecutor and the Syndicate of Journalism for the
release of the Victim, who had stayed in detention
for 5 months without
going to trial, fell on deaf cars.
6.
The Complainant alleges that the Victim has been subjected to ill treatment
and humiliation with prison wardens raiding prisoners' cells and
beating
them with sticks as well as kicking them in different parts of their bodies.
The Victim is being held
(1.5
with two others
a tiny, poorly ventilated cell
in
by 2) which is meant to accommodate only one prisoner. The Victim
and other prisoners were denied visitation rights from their families, their
cell
were
prayer
emptied
mats,
of essential
utensils,
etc.
and
The
needful
Victim
and
things
other
blankets,
clothes,
prisoners also
like
suffered
from other forms of ill-treatment.
7.
The
Complainant
alleges
that she
has
only
seen
the
Victim
once
since
September 2015 and just for three minutes via a glass panel and handset
phone. The Complainant further alleges after she brought a case before the
Court
regarding
favour.
panel
the
However,
which
duration
of
the
visit,
and
the
Court
the Court's order was not implemented
lhe
Court
ruled
to
be
removed
and
ruled
and
replaced
in
her
the glass
with
an
alternative method, has not been removed by the prison authorities.
8.
On the issue of exhaustion of local remedies the Complainant submits that
they
had
victim's
submitted
illegal
Egyptian judiciary
Complainant
safety
to
impediment
and
the
Egyptian
lo
no
authorities
avail.
that the State of Egypt has
themselves
renders
local
of
local
remedies
remedies
impracticable.
Articles
to
torture
She
against
argues
that
the
the
is being "used by the regime to punish dissidents". The
claims
avail
complaints
detention
alleged to have been violated
not created
and
ineffective,
a climate of
consequently
this
undesirable
and
9.
TI1e Complainant alleges that Articles 5, 6 & 7 of the African Charter on
Human and
Peoples'
Rights (the African Charter) have been violated
by
the Respondent State.
Prayers
10. The Complainant prays
the African Commission on Human and
Peoples'
Rights (the Africa Commission) to:
Request the State of Egypt to end the illegal detention of the Victim
i.
and
release
him
immediately
as
there
is
no
credible
evidence
against him, since the Victim's arrest he was not arraigned in Court
and no evidence of the charges against him were found;
Urge
11.
Egypt to open an
disappearances,
investigation into the reports of enforced
conditions
of
detention
and
torture
during
interrogation and detention;
Urge
111.
the State of Egypt to end
its crackdown
on journalists and
union members;
iv.
Cause the authorities to implement the Court's order which allows
visitation for up to one hour rather than 3 minutes, and remove the
glass panel.
Procedure
11. The Complaint was
received at the Secretariat on 18 December 2015, and
the Secretariat acknowledged receipt on 09 March 2016.
12. The Corrununication
was seized
during
the 58th Ordinary Session
of the
Commission, held from 06 to 20 April 2016 and transmitted the decision to
the
Parties
by
correspondence
letter
and
the
Note
Verbale
Complainant
was
on
04
May
requested
2016.
to
By
the
submit
same
on
the
admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months.
13. The Complainant's submissions were received at the Secretariat on 12 July
2016.
The
Secretariat
acknowledged
receipt
and
transmitted
the
Complainant's submissions on admissibility to the Respondent State on 24
November 2016, requesting the State to submit on admissibility within two
(2) months.
14. The submissions of the Respondent State was received at the Secretariat on
28 April 2017.
15. On
11
July
Ordinary
2017
Session
the
of
Secretariat
the
informed
Commission,
held
the
Parties
from
08
to
that
22
at
May
I
the
1h
60
2017
in
Niamey, Niger, the consideration of the Communi cation
was deferred to a
later Session.
16. On 13 July 2017 the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the admissibility
submissions
of the
Respondent State and
requested
the
Complainant to
submit any additional written observations within thirty (30) days.
17. On 06 August 2017 the Complainant submitted a request for an extension
of time in submitting the additional observations.
18. On
14
strike
August 2017
out
the
the
Respondent State
Communication
because
requested
the
the Commission
Complainant
had
not
to
yet
submitted additional observations within the timeline provided.
19. On 25 September 2017 the Secretariat informed the parties that during the
2211d Extra-Ordinary Session of the Commission,
August 2017
was
in
deferred
Dakar, Senegal,
pending
held
from 29 Jul y
to 07
the consideration of the Communi catio n
submission
of
additional
observations
by
the
Complainant.
20. On
01
March
Complainant's
2018
the
request
for
Secretariat
the
informed
extension
that
the
before
the
2018,
the
closure of the case, and
the
of
the
time,
Parties
received
deadline of submissions, had been granted.
21. In
correspondence
received
Complainant requested
at
the
Secretariat
the withdrawal
and
on
15
May
Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the request for withdrawal on 02 July
2018, informing the Complainant that the request would be tabled before
the Commission for consideration.
Complainant's request for withdrawal
22. The Complainant is requesting the withdrawal and closure of the case on
the basis that the family of the Victim no longer wishes to pursue the claim.
The
representative
of
the Complainant further
informs
the
Commission
that they had been trying to reach the Complainant for a long time, and
were eventually informed
by
the Complainant that the
Victim had
been
released by the authorities, "on precautionary and surveillance measures"
for a five
years'
period.
In addition,
they submit that the lawyer of the
family had been arrested, which makes it difficult to obtain documents. For
these reasons the Complainant does not wish to proceed with the claim.
Analysis of the African Commission
23. The Commission
is of the view
lhat whether
the Complainant wishes to
continue with a given case before the Commission is an important, albeit
not
the
sole
consideration
Commission should
Complainant
for
in
determining
continue or
seeking
to
be closed.
withdraw
whether
a
The reasons
the
case
before
provided
Communication
is
the
by
the
twofold,
firstly because the Victim had been released by the authorities, as per the
first prayer of the Complainant, and secondly because the family's lawyer
had been arrested, making it difficult to obtain documents.
24. Given that the Communication is currently still at the level of admissibility,
the
Commission
foresees
that
the
difficulty
in
accessing
documents,
because of the arrest of the lawyer, would be a serious impediment for the
Complainant in building a case on the merits. The Commission would also
not
be
able
to
make
a
determination
submissions
by
the Complainant.
on
the
In addition,
merits
in
the
absence
of
the Commission considers
the release of the Victim as the primary prayer of the Complainant, with
the
fourth
prayer
being
premised
on
the
former,
and
the other
prayers
being of a more general nature, and not specific to the Victim in the present
case.
25. for
these
reasons,
the
Corrunission
decides
to
grant
the
request
for
withdrawal.
Decision of the African Commission
26. Based on the above, the Conunission declares the Communication closed.
Done in Banjul, The Gambia during the 241h Extra-Ordinary Session held from 30
July to 08 August 2018
••
' .,-- .
-,�
(��·])
.Al
u:) t·
""
/