244/01 : Arab Organisation for Human Rights / Egypt Summary of Facts 1. The complaint is filed by the Arab Organisation for Human Rights (AOHR), Egypt, on behalf of Professor Saadeddin Mohammed Ibrahim (male, 61), Nadia Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Nour (female, 49), Khaled Ahmed Mohammed Al-Fayyad (male, 29), Usama Hashem Hammad ‘Ali (male, 28), Mohammed Hassanein Hassanein ‘Amara (male, 49), Magda Ibrahim Ibrahim Al-Bey (female, 41), and Marwa Ibrahim Zaki Ahmed Al Sayyid Gouda (female). 2. This complaint follows the trial and conviction by the Supreme Security Court of the Respondent State in May 2001 of Professor Saadeddin Ibrahim, Director and Chair of the Board of Directors of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, who was also treasurer of Hay’at Da’am alNakhibat (Association for the Support of Women Voters, known in Egypt as ‘Hoda Association’), together with twenty-seven (27) other persons, including the six (6) other individuals mentioned above. They were all working either as permanent employees or project associates of the two organisations and ten (10) of them were tried in absentia . 3. The Complainant alleges that the accused were charged with deliberately disseminating information abroad about the internal situation in the Respondent State damaging its stature contrary to Article 80(d) of the Penal Code, conspiring to bribe public officials to undermine the performance of their duties contrary to Articles 40(2), 40(3), and 48 of the Penal Code, receiving donations from the European Union (EU) without prior permission from the competent authorities contrary to Articles 1(6) and 2(1) of Military Order No. 4 of 1992, using deceptive methods to defraud the EU of funds made available to the two organisations contrary to Article 336(1) of the Penal Code, and accepting and offering bribes and of forgery of official documents contrary to Articles 103, 104, 107bis, 207, 211, and 214 of the Penal Code. They were convicted and sentenced to several terms of imprisonment ranging from seven years with hard labour to one year suspended terms. 4. In the process of apprehending, trying and convicting the accused, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent State violated their pre-trial and trial rights, freedom of expression, rights to appeal, and rights to effective domestic remedies. Regarding pre-trial violations, the Complainant alleges that Professor Ibrahim, Usama Hamad Ali, and Nadia Abdel Nour were first arrested by officers of th the Mabahith Amn al-Dawla al-‘Ulya (State Security Intelligence) on 30 June 2000. Professor Ibrahim and Nadia Abdel Nour were held in administrative detention without access to judicial supervision or th other remedies until 10 August 2000 when they were released on bail. During this period, no formal charges were brought against them. Usama Hamad ‘Ali was initially released on 1st July 2000 but was later re-arrested and similarly held in administrative detention until granted bail in August 2000. No th charges were brought against all the accused until 24 September 2000. They were held in subhuman condition [sic] and interrogated for unduly long hours. Having been arrested without warrants, Nadia Abdel Nour and Usama Hammad ‘Ali were neither informed of the reasons for their arrest nor were they afforded access to their lawyers during interrogation. The former was allowed access to her lawyer only after over three weeks since she first requested for it. 5. Regarding violations during the trial, the Complainant alleges that the accused were denied adequate time and facilities for the conduct of their defence, [and] their defence coun[se]ls were th denied access to the prosecution’s evidence. Although the trial began on 18 November 2000, the th defence lawyers were granted access to examine the prosecution’s evidence on 19 March 2001, by which time they had called most of their witnesses. They were permitted to examine these documents only for three hours and were not allowed to make any copies thereof. In addition, defence lawyers were required to conduct the examination in the presence and under the supervision of staff of the Supreme State Security Prosecution. 6. In May 2001, the prosecution concluded its closing statement to be followed by the introduction of hundreds of pages of additional written evidence by the defence, which the court accepted. On the same day, however, and after adjourning at about 14:00 hours local time for one and half hours, the judges of the Supreme Security Court returned guilty verdicts and announced the sentence. The th considered judgement of the Court was out only on 19 June 2001, nearly one month after the