Barring Al Wefaq SG from travel is punishment, not a precautionary measure: Lawyers

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) In their letter of grievance to the Prosecution Office, the lawyers stated that all evidence presented prove the opposite of these accusations, describing them as baseless, politically-motivated and target the political activism and opinions of Salman. Salman has denied all charges against him. The lawyers said the interrogation with Salman ended with a needless decision for the travel ban to continue and that there is no fear that the aggrieved would run away, given that he had attended all his interrogation sessions.        The Prosecution Office had carried out an interrogation on December 28th 2013, about allegations made by the Ministry of Interior accusing Salman of “Inciting hatred and contempt of the regime” and “spreading false news while knowing that this may cause damage in the national security with this false news having led to actual damage”. The MoI also alleged that Salman “incited hatred and contempt of a sect of people”. A travel ban was imposed on Salman following the interrogation.      The lawyers clarified that the audio recording of Salman’s sermon delivered on December 27th, 2013, which he was questioned about, prove the contrary of the accusations against him. The audio recording proves that Salman stressed on nonviolence to reach political reform and to make the people the source of all powers, as the constitution states. Salman had repeatedly stressed this in his sermon, he said, “There is no solution for this stalemate other than referring to real ballot boxes which produce the legislative and executive authority to form the judicial authority. Let’s widen the boycott of this tyrannical regime through the various peaceful methods. The reactions to the State-violence remain limited, and we must work to reduce these violent reactions and develop our peaceful reactions. This was our choice of 2013, 2012, 2011, and it is our choice for 2014. The nonviolent approach does not fear arrests and does not stop because of arrests”.    The lawyers pointed out that the interrogation questions were built on fragmented or incomplete phrases taken out of their context in order to fabricate charges against Salman. The lawyers added, “The investigation record made by a chairman of the MoI had accused the aggrieved without presenting relevant evidence and only motioned that; based on the investigations, the grieved has been found to be aiming to incite hatred of the regime and spread false news and call for the continuation of violent and riot acts. However, this finding was not supported by evidence or the essence of the “secret-sources”.      “The grieved, is the Secretary-General of Al Wefaq National Islamic Society which adopts clear peaceful political activism as stated in several declarations like the Manama Document and the Nonviolence Principles Declaration. These were both ignored by the interrogation officer, although they are published and accessible to everyone”, the statement added.   While Salman had urged the youth to remain peaceful, the Prosecution Office considered his sermon an incitement to riot and violence and hatred of the regime. However, the lawyers said that the sermon delivered by Salman on December 27th, 2013, was no more than a reading of the 2013 events, including the intensifying political situation that overshadowed the media as well as the social and economic life. Salman outlined facts that had already been documented in reports made by international rights organizations and bodies, the lawyers stressed.The lawyers also stressed that the sermon of their client, Sheikh Ali Salman, came within the exercise of freedom of expression and opinion and legitimate criticism. His description of the regime as an authoritarian one is based on internationally-known indexes like the Economist’s. “In fact, the State has officially approved some of the conclusions mentioned by our client in his sermon and that is through the king’s acceptance of the BICI report that confirmed arbitrary arrests, excessive use of force and repressing the opposition”, they said.The lawyers pointed out that the interrogations focused on their client’s understanding of arbitrary arrest by considering some of those who had been given sentences arbitrarily arrested. Despite that he adopted the understanding of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that had released a report about Nabeel Rajab considering he had been arbitrarily arrested according to international standards, although all judicial procedures were carried out according to the Bahraini law.“Adopting classifications made by the United Nations cannot be considered a crime in a democratic society”, the lawyers stated.  “As to questioning our client for mentioning that there are 3000 detainees, and which was considered to be false news, the BICI report mentioned in paragraph 1705 that the number of detainees during the National Safety Law between 15th March and 30th May 2011 was 2929, this is close to 3000. And by following the number of detainees in the past period, one can be sure that it has gone beyond 3000, especially that no other official number has been announced since 31 months”, the statement added.   The lawyers found linking Salman’s sermon to the violent acts that took place after to be strange. They said these acts have been taking place routinely for over two years now and cannot be considered a direct result of the sermon. If that was the situation, then the wrongdoers should have been arrested and interrogation should have concluded that the sermon had actually motivated them to commit violent acts. However, the documents say that these acts were committed by unknown persons, so how were the findings reached without questioning these persons? Another question is why weren’t these events of violent acts linked to the number of detainees mentioned in the BICI report instead of linking them to the sermon?   As to accusations of inciting hatred and contempt of a sect of citizens, the lawyers stated that the interrogation documents lacked material evidence as bases for this accusation. “Our client has talked about the State’s discrimination against one sect and its refusal to build mosques and religious places of a certain sect on main streets. Such complaints cannot be considered incitement against any sect. It has become clear that a number of Shiite mosques were demolished. And the existence of sectarian tension is true and was highlighted in the speech of Mr. Obama before the U.N General Assembly”.  The lawyers attached a detailed explanation about the authorities’ use of travel ban as a punishment against Al Wefaq’s Secretary General. “This measure is used when authorities fear the defendant may leave the country to elude judicial decisions”, the lawyers said, “As to the case of our client, Sheikh Ali Salman is a Bahraini citizen and a known personality. He is the Secretary-General of the biggest political society that has won the highest number of voices in both the 2006 and 2010 parliament elections. He has not left Bahrain despite threats of assassination from anonymous sides. Yet, he has chosen to stay in his only residence in Bahrain”.      The statement mentioned that the travel ban given to Salman is aimed to restrict his freedom of movement to explain his party’s political vision and views to foreign diplomats. It said the travel ban came ahead of a scheduled visit to some European states and affects the political work of Al Wefaq Society as a whole as well as political activism.They assured that Salman had never missed an appointment for interrogation, even when the summons delivered to him did not mention the reason he was called in for. “Our client had chosen to attend the interrogation and cooperate with the security authorities although he was called in 6 hours before the scheduled appointment and although he was taken from the CID to the Public Prosecution Office –while handcuffed- despite the fact that the prosecution office had not summoned him and no decision had been issued to arrest him. Still, he was ready to cooperate and present international reports by rights groups and democracy houses and that could help the prosecution office reach the truth. He had also signed a pledge to appear before the security and judicial authorities for interrogation after his release.“Despite his numerous travels, he has not missed any interrogation appointments. All this makes fears that our client may leave and not return to Bahrain irrelevant, thus, the travel ban decision lacks legal bases”.“As to the interrogation’s questions about referring to the prime minister in his sermon; classifying the position of the prime minister as one of the “ruling figures” is considered a widening of the understanding of this term which is defined in the constitution as being the king and the crown prince. By including the prime minister in this term, the parliament looses right to question and criticize the prime minister and his Government. If this understanding is widened as so, it could include all ministers in the cabinet, and all State-employees, contradicting basic principles of democratic rule”, the lawyers stated.    “By considering our client’s call to boycott the parliament elections an insult and contempt of the regime, the authorities are acting against citizens’ right to vote or boycott for any reason. Our client is calling for boycott as a peaceful method to exercise freedom of expression” they added./149