|
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Urgent appeals
886. On 7 May 2004, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, regarding Kristiana Malinova Valcheva, Nasya Stojcheva Nenova, Valentina Manolova Siropulo, Valya Georgieva Chervenyashka and Snezhanka Ivanova Dimitrova, five Bulgarian health professionals, and Ashraf Ahmad Jum’a, a Palestinian doctor. According to the allegations received, they were arrested in December 1998 and accused of deliberately infecting 426 children with the HIV virus, while working in al-Fateh Children’s Hospital in Benghazi. For the first 15 months of detention, no information was disclosed on the reason for their arrest, and the first hearing was held in February 2000 without the Embassy of Bulgaria being informed. They have been sentenced to death by firing squad by the Benghazi Criminal Court on 6 May 2004. In the same trial, Zdravko Marinov Georgiev, a sixth Bulgarian defendant, was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and nine Libyan doctors were acquitted. The foreign medical professionals’ confessions, which they later retracted, were extracted through torture, including extensive use of electric shocks, being suspended from a height by the arms, blindfolded and threatened with dogs, beatings, especially on the soles of the feet (falaga), and beaten with electric cables. On the basis of the allegations of torture, eight members of the security forces, a doctor and a translator were charged in connection with the torture. They reportedly faced trial alongside the above-named health professionals before the same criminal court in Benghazi. However, on 6 May 2004 the Benghazi Criminal Court eventually pronounced that it was not competent to examine their cases. It is not clear whether those charged in connection with the torture of the health professionals will be tried.
887. By letter dated 10 December 2004, the Government informed that the accused persons were charged with causing the spread of an infectious disease by injecting 393 children, which led to the deaths of 23 children; and using lethal substances to commit deliberate murder. These actions are offences punishable under articles 305 to 327 and 371 of the Penal Code. They were informed of the charges against them as soon as they appeared before the Department of Public Prosecutions. It makes no sense to assert that the charges against them did not refer to the most serious crimes, as defined in the resolutions of the Economic and Social Council or the Commission on Human Rights or in other relevant United Nations resolutions, which restrict the imposition of the death penalty to only the most serious crimes. The least one can say about this crime is that it is a crime of genocide which contravenes all international treaties, conventions and legal norms, as well as humanitarian principles. The trial of the accused persons before the Benghazi Criminal Court lasted 10 months, which is not a period short enough to warrant it being characterized as a summary or an arbitrary trial. The accused persons were afforded all the safeguards provided for in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the relevant United Nations resolutions to ensure the right to a fair trial: the right to a defence, the right to the services of an interpreter and the right to call expert witnesses. The trial was conducted in public in the presence of journalists, diplomatic and consular staff and members of NGOs. The accused persons were represented in court both by a Libyan lawyer and a Bulgarian lawyer. They were guaranteed all the rights to a defence which are required to ensure a fair trial, namely access to the case files, the right to have the witnesses and experts examined, the right to present legal arguments during every session of the trial and the right to communicate with their lawyers. After the defence had exercised all its legal rights, the court suspended the case until sentencing. It pronounced its verdict at a public session held in April 2004. It sentenced the accused persons to death on the above-mentioned charges, which refer to acts that are designated as crimes under the Penal Code. Thus, neither the offences nor the penalty can be said to have been created retroactively. The lawyers for the accused appealed to the Supreme Court against the verdict handed down by the Benghazi Criminal Court. In accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court must review court judgements and either uphold them, if it finds them to be sound, or quash them, if it does not. The accused persons will be represented before the Supreme Court by two Bulgarian lawyers, an Egyptian lawyer and a Libyan lawyer. While they were being held in pre-trial detention, the accused persons were afforded all the rights to which they were entitled under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Prisons Act and its implementing regulation. Embassy and consular staff from their country met with them on a number of occasions and they received the visit of the Bulgarian Minister for Foreign Affairs and representatives of NGOs, imcluding Amnesty International. They also had interviews with their lawyers and visits from Bulgarian medical staff and from Italian consular representatives, to name but a few. The accused persons claimed that their confessions had been extracted under torture. The investigating authorities looked into those claims and the accused persons were given medical examinations. At the same time, some police officers who had been accused of torture were questioned and were arraigned before the Benghazi Criminal Court. Having reviewed the charges against the police officers, the Court determined that it did not have competence to rule on the matter, since the offence had not been committed within its jurisdiction. (It had allegedly occurred in Tripoli.) The Department of Public Prosecutions intends to refer the police officers to the Tripoli Criminal Court, since it has competence for hearing the case against them.
888. On 30 July 2004, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal with respect to allegations received concerning at least 200 Eritrean nationals. They are currently detained incommunicado in detention centres throughout the country, including in Kufra, Misrata, Tripoli, and are at risk of torture and imminent forcible return to Eritrea. Most are believed to have either deserted from compulsory military service or evaded conscription. On 21 July 2004, over 110 Eritrean nationals were forcibly returned to Eritrea. They were taken to the remote Gelalo prison in eastern Eritrea, where conditions are reported to be harsh. It is reported that about 40 of those returned on 21 July were arrested in a street round up in Tripoli in connection with suspected drug and alcohol-related offences, and were convicted and deported the same day. At least another 40 had been detained longer in detention centres in Misrata and Tripoli, apparently for illegal entry. Others in the group were detained since June, when the boat in which they were attempting to reach Italy was forced back by bad weather.
889. By letter dated 8 November 2004, the Government informed that the deportation of a number Eritrean nationals was carried out in accordance with laws regulating the presence of aliens, following an increase in the number of crimes (drug smuggling, prostitution, fraud, begging, murder, theft, forgery, illegal immigration to Europe) committed by these persons, most of whom were suffering from serious infectious diseases. While the Government reaffirms its commitment to international conventions, particularly the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which it ratified in 1989, it points out that the Eritrean nationals who were deported were not asylum-seekers or refugees, who would have been entitled to exemption from such a measure. They had entered the country for the sole purpose of illegally immigrating to Europe and most of them were arrested for committing criminal offences. Hence, their deportation to their country of origin was carried out in accordance with law. With regard to granting temporary asylum status or the repatriation of such persons, the law does not authorize such procedures. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights or the Special Rapporteur on torture will be able to check directly with the Government of Eritrea that when the deported Eritreans returned to their country they were guaranteed protection against inhuman treatment. As for the prolonged periods which some of the persons awaiting deportation have spent in detention centres, this is due to the failure on the part of the Embassy of Eritrea in Tripoli to proceed with the prompt issuance of travel documents for the prospective deportees.
890. On 22 September 2004, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the right to health regarding Fathi al-Jahmi, his wife Fawzia ‘Abdullah Gogha, and their eldest son, Muhammad Fathi al-Jahmi. According to the allegations received, they were taken from their home in Tripoli by the authorities on 26 March 2004. Their arrest was linked to several media interviews given by Fathi al-Jahmi, including to the Arabic channel al-Hurrah, based in the United States, and to the Dubai-based Arabic channel al-’Arabiya, in which he called for reform in the country. After the interviews, basic services to his house such as his telephone connection were suspended. No charges were brought against him. The authorities claimed that he is being held for his own protection because of public outrage generated by his media interviews. Since their arrest, Fathi al-Jahmi, his wife and eldest son have been denied access to the outside world, including to lawyers, relatives and doctors. It was reported that Fathi al- Jahmi is in poor health and requires medical treatment.
891. On 8 October 2004, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on the right to health, regarding Fathi al-Jahmi and his wife Fawzia
‘Abdullah Gogha, cited in a previously transmitted communication (see above). According
to the allegations received, they are still in detention and have not been charged with a
criminal offence. Their families have received no confirmation of their exact whereabouts.
Furthermore, it is reported that Fathi al-Jahmi’s health continues to be poor. He is said to
suffer from diabetes, high blood pressure and a heart disease for which he has had surgery. It
is reported that he has not received any medical treatment since the beginning of his
detention.
Back to Contents
Liberia
Malawi
This report has been published by Equipo Nizkor and Derechos Human Rights on July 27, 2005.