(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - The Judge Ali Al-Dhahrani Operates the Civil Courts in the Same Manner as the National Safety CourtsThis report was prepared following observations and analysis of the cases investigated by the Fourth High Criminal Court from 10 July until 10 September 2013. The report is based on both the testimonies of the defense in the various cases looked into by the aforementioned Court, and the observations of the representatives of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights who attended a selection of the court sessions.
Introduction:
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights expresses its deep concern over the Bahraini authorities continued restrictions against activists and citizens in general and the denial of their right to peacefully protest and demand their right to self-determination. The authorities continue to use politically motivated trials to attack activists and citizens. Coinciding with the security campaign led by the Bahraini authorities, the Fourth High Criminal Court, presided over by Judge Ali Al-Dhahrani, began on 10 July 2013 to investigate various cases in which prominent activists have been charged. The Fourth High Criminal Court, as activists and outside observers find it, lacks the basic fundamentals of a fair trial, as will be reviewed in this report.
The Right to a Fair Trial:
International and Bahraini laws state that the right to a fair trial cannot be neglected under any circumstances. After observing the cases investigated by the Fourth High Criminal Court, this report finds that violations of the most basic elements and components of a fair trial are clearly evident as the following details and cases explain:
- Publicity of Sessions
International law requires that all criminal trials are open for the public to attend, including the media. ‘Article 10 (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights): Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.’
Although there is no official regulation that forbids members of the press and human rights activists from attending the court sessions, which are supposed to be public, the procedures of Judge Al-Dhahrani make this a de facto rule. The journalist ‘Ali Turaif’ from the Alwasat newspaper was banned on more than one occasion from entering the courtroom, and was not provided with any justification. Families of detainees are also not permitted to attend the sessions, with the exception of one person per detainee; the authorities cite the small size of the courtrooms as justification.
- The Presumption of Innocence
Among the basic procedural guarantees under International and Bahraini laws is the presumption of innocence. ‘First clause, Article 11 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.’
The Case of the Karzakan Shotgun: ‘Three Detainees, Verdict Pronounced in Sunday’s Session on 15 September 2013’
The defense in the case referred to as ‘shotgun weapon – Karzakan’, where three citizens have been charged, stated that the three detainees (Jaffar Ahmed Ali, Hussein Mansoor Eid and Mustafa Abdulkareem) have been subjected to beating and abuse since their arrest. The defendants have been accused of the attempted murder of a police officer through the possession of firearms and homemade explosives. The defense demonstrated that the detainees are innocent of the charges against them based on a number of facts, such as the invalidity of confessions extracted under physical and mental torture. These illegal confessions also contradicted other evidence in the case. The detainee Hussein Mansoor Eid was forced to make a contradictory confession against his companions after being subjected to coercion. The two other detainees ‘Jaffar and Mustafa’ were also subjected to coercion, beating and mental torture in order to confess to crimes they did not commit.
In addition to the contradictory statements that were forcibly extracted from the defendants, this report also finds the prosecution’s investigation to be inadequate, and demonstrated a disregard for the evidence. One of the witnesses stated in the interrogation report in the Public Prosecution that he suffered from a wound caused by a live bullet and a bruise in his right leg. However, he responded to questions from Judge Al-Dhahrani that he was injured, and that none of the security officers with him were injured. He also stated before the Public Prosecution that he witnessed three people carrying something in their hands, while he stated before court that he only saw one person carrying something. One of the witnesses from the security forces in the trial stated that while chasing the offenders, the battery on their wireless radio died, which prevented them from calling for further support from the security forces to chase the fugitives. However, the other witness contradicted this statement when he said that the three citizens were reported arrested in Karzakan by the use of the handheld radio device.
The lawyers went as far as pushing for the invalidity of the lawsuit especially in the absence of concrete evidence that implicates the three detainees. Since their arrest, the public prosecution has not provided any proof that the accused possessed any weapon, and their fingerprints were not found on the seized weapons. The investigation could not conclude that the three detainees used anything that prevents their fingerprints from being detected on the weapons, such as gloves, and their clothing was not marked with gunpowder (see: http://manamavoice.com/news-news_read-15100-0.html).
The Citizen with Dual Bahraini-American Nationality Taqi Al-Maidan and His Companions: The Verdict Hearing Session on Thursday 26 September 2013
Al-Maidan was arrested at dawn on Sunday 7 October 2012 from his home by masked civilians after breaking the front door of the house which caused panic and intimidated the family. Al-Maidan was accused of attempting to murder several police officers, setting fire to a vehicle owned by the Ministry of Interior, the possession of flammable canisters, and assembling in a public place consisting of more than five people with the intention to breach security, commit crimes and attack the police forces.
The lawyer Mohammed Al-Jishi insisted on the invalidity of the investigations regarding the detainee Taqi Al-Maidan and stated that the charges are legally void because they are based on testimonies of unnamed witnesses, which the prosecution cites as confidential sources. The investigation drew its conclusions from a single, confidential source, and since the credibility of the source can not be confirmed, the investigation is therefore invalid. Al-Jishi also emphasized the invalidity of initially arresting the defendant, which makes all subsequent procedures invalid. In addition, the prosecution has not presented any evidence that proves that Al-Maidan is implicated in the charges against him, which further supports his innocence and indicates that he ought to be released (see: http://www.alwasatnews.com/3963/news/read/792605/1.html). The Bahrain Center for Human Rights previously released a statement in which it denounces the detention of Al-Maidan without providing him access to legal representation and adequate medical care (see: http://bahrainrights.hopto.org/ar/node/5561).
The Lawyer Abdulla Zen-el-deen: Denied Access to the Evidence that Proves the Innocence of the Al-Dair Bombing Defendants
The Public Prosecution referred four citizens to court after accusing them with the attempted murder of a citizen and police officers by hiding an explosive device in the village of Dair. The lawyer of one of the defendants in the case, Abdulla Zen-el-deen, requested in three consecutive sessions to present the evidence that contains security camera films of the incident. However, the Judge continued to refuse the request (see: http://www.alwasatnews.com/3999/news/read/801719/1.html). The detainees confirm that the road in which the government claims the crime took place has a security surveillance camera covering the alleged location of the crime, and this footage could clearly indicate to the perpetrator (see: http://www.alwasatnews.com/3988/news/read/799084/1.html).
The Media Violates International Conventions and Conspires with the Prosecution and Court by Publishing Photos of Defendants Being Convicted
In the court session known as the 14 February organization, the lawyer Jassim Al-Sarhan spoke about violations to the defendants’ rights via the publishing of photographs and information about defendants in the media before their trial with the intention of defaming the defendants. This is considered a clear and explicit violation of international conventions and the Bahraini constitution, as it is incompatible with the principle that the ‘defendant is innocent until proven guilty’ (see: http://www.alwasatnews.com/3961/news/read/792145/1.html). Bahrain’s official TV station broadcasted photos of detainees in cases where an investigation was pending; the Public Prosecution justified this by saying that there are some exceptional cases where such an act is acceptable (see: http://manamavoice.com/news-news_read-4692-0.html). The Ministry of Human Rights said in an official statement that the amendment made on Article 246 of the Penal Code permits publishing photos and names of defendants before their conviction (see: http://www.albiladpress.com/article202846-1.html). One of the detainees in the case where the defendant was charged with burning a bank cash machine spoke of the same violation, which violates their rights by broadcasting their photos on official state TV and media before being convicted. However, the judge in the case, Judge Al-Dhahrani, interrupted the defendant and asked him to be silent.
Convicting an individual in court without demonstrating any evidence that demonstrates his guilt in the act for which he stands accused, deprives him of his right to being presumed innocent.
- The Defendant’s Right to Consult with Lawyers and Prepare a Defense
International and Bahraini laws state that criminal suspects must be granted adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense, including the ability to communicate with lawyers. ‘Paragraph (d), Clause 3, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it’.
The presence of a lawyer is essential to the defense in order to guarantee that the defendant’s statements are made accurately and with a reassured will. In general, the ability of detainees to meet with their lawyers was found to be either weak or non-existent, especially during the first periods of detention, in most of the cases investigated by the Fourth High Criminal Court under the internationally criticized Terrorism Law (which violates the Bahraini National Constitution).
Denying the Rights of The Detainee Faisal Al-Alawi in Meeting With His Lawyer, in the Case of ‘Imam Army’
The former member of the Bahraini military, Faisal Al-Alawi, was arrested from Oman soon after the signing of a security agreement among the GCC countries on 22 January 2013. He was accused of participating in a terrorism cell known locally as the ‘Imam Army’. The lawyer Minan Al-Durazi mentioned that she filed a request to meet her client Al-Alawi, however Judge Al-Dhahrani cancelled the request due to a mistake made by the detention center. When the mistake was corrected, he refused to sign the corrected letter.
Raihanna Al-Musawi, Accused in the Case ‘14 February Organization’ and Detonating the Formula 1, No Official Lawyer
Raihanna Al-Musawi was arrested in April 2013, and her family declared that they were not able to officially appoint a lawyer until recently. The lawyer Abdulla Zen-el-deen, who represents the lawyer Mohammed Al-Tajer’s office, is handling her case, although she was not given an opportunity to appoint him officially and to document the appointment.
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights concluded that more than 95% of detainees in the 28 cases investigated by the Fourth High Criminal Court were denied their right to the a presence of a lawyer during the interrogation in the cases against them. This makes the confessions made by the defendants highly doubtful, particularly when considered with the increase in the number of complaints regarding torture and mistreatment filed by the detainees which include allegations of being subjected to mental and physical torture to confess.
- The Right to Summon and Question Witnesses
The right to a fair trial, according to the principles of international law, includes the principle known as ‘equal opportunity’, which means that the parties obtain the same opportunities and possibilities while presenting their view of the case. Paragraph (e) of Clause 3 of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states in the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: ‘To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him’.
In the Case of the Imam Army: Prosecution Witnesses Depend on Confidential Sources, and Some of Them Cannot Remember Details
On 15 August 2013, the Fourth High Criminal Court refused to listen to the statements of the defendants in the case of the Imam Army (see: http://bahrainrights.hopto.org/ar/node/6350). This was the second time since the Court began investigating the case that the Court President, Judge Ali Khalifa Al-Dhahrani, refused to provide the defendants with an opportunity to speak before court regarding the violations against their rights during arrest, detention and interrogation. At a time when the Court did not allow the defendants to speak about the violations they were subjected to during their detention, the Court began listening to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, one of which has been accused of taking part in several torture cases (see: http://www.alwasatnews.com/3972/news/read/795060/1.html).
The first witness in the trial, Mohammed Khalid Al-Saeedi, stated that ‘confidential sources’ led him to conclude the defendants took part in establishing a ‘terrorist cell’. Al-Saeedi added that the defendants were communicating with each other through modern communication programs such as Viber, Skype and email, and that they had Omani and Iranian SIM cards. The witne