نعى اليم ...... سودانيز اون لاين دوت كم تحتسب الزميل فتحي البحيري فى رحمه الله
وداعاً فتحي البحيري
|
|
 Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق (Re: nada ali)
|
2
An emergency and unfair justice system in Darfur
In 2001, faced with a rising security problem, which included inter-ethnic attacks and a rise in banditry, the government of Sudan chose a path of arbitrary repression, diminishing safeguards for the individual before the courts. The failure to address tensions by using the police to protect the population and fair trials in the courts to judge criminals eroded the rule of law and created an atmosphere of injustice. Traditional mechanisms of reconciliation between ethnic groups which might have defused the situation were also bypassed in this repressive policy.
In 2001 Special Courts were set up in North, South and West Darfur states by separate decrees, following a declaration of a State of Emergency in the region. Whilst Special Courts still operate in North and West Darfur, in April 2003 Special Courts in South Darfur were replaced by Specialized Criminal Courts. The decrees are broadly similar.
The guarantees for fair trial, laid down in Article 14 of the ICCPR, include the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal; the presumption of innocence; the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the charges; to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence; and to communicate with counsel of one’s own choosing; not to be compelled to testify against oneself; to examine, or have examined, the prosecution witnesses and to obtain the attendance and examination of defence witnesses; and the right to review of the sentence by a higher tribunal. Most of these rights are not allowed to those tried in Darfur’s special courts.
While the ICCPR allows the derogation of some rights in a time of public emergency “which threatens the life of the nation”, the Human Rights Committee, the panel of experts to examine implementation of the ICCPR, has stated the view that some of the core fair trial rights of Article 14 should be non-derogable. The African Charter contains no emergency clause and therefore allows no derogation from the rights it enshrines.
The Special Courts are headed by one civilian and two military judges; the military judges do not need to have any legal qualifications. The Decree on the Establishment of a Special Court in Al-Fasher (Decree No. 21 for 2001 of the State Governor) states in Article 5:
“c) The evidence of finger-prints is enough [for a conviction] and there is no need for further supporting evidence.
d) The Court accepts the confession of the accused and considers it as evidence if it is convinced by this confession.
e) If the accused withdraws his confession, the Court shall take the confession into account as evidence against the accused. The accused has no right to withdraw his confession.”
At no point does the decree stipulate that confessions extracted under torture should not be used.
The jurisdiction of the Darfur Special Courts and the Specialized Criminal Courts cover a wide range of offences including armed robbery and haraba (banditry); unlicensed possession of firearms; crimes under articles 50-57 of the Penal Code (offences against the State); public order offences; and “anything else considered a crime by the Wali (Governor) of the State or the Head of the Judiciary” (Article 4). Under Article 5(g) of Decree No. 21, “lawyers have no right to appear before the courts to represent the accused. The friend of a defendant can appear instead to provide help before the court”. Sentences over five years’ imprisonment can be appealed within seven days to the Darfur Court of Appeal, whose verdict is final except in cases involving amputation or the death penalty, which may be appealed to the Supreme Court in Khartoum and the Constitutional Court, which has sometimes overturned cases because of lack of evidence.
Trials by Special Courts in North and West Darfur are deeply flawed. The presence of members of the security as judges calls into question the independence of the judiciary. Trials in these courts are summary and death penalties have been handed down after trials which have only lasted an hour. The detainees have only very limited and insufficient rights of defence, lawyers are only allowed to be present as “friends” and to meet the defendant for short periods of time, sometimes only just before the trial and without sufficient time to examine the case file. Torture is often reported and confessions made under torture are accepted as evidence. Frequently the presumption is one of guilt rather than of innocence, which is one of the preconditions of a fair trial.
In the Special Courts lawyers have used the possibility of appearing as the “defendant’s friend” to plead on behalf of the accused, but this position does not give them the same rights as an appearance as defence counsel in the ordinary courts. They do not have the same right of access to the case file or to make a final plea (although the Special Court sometimes grants them these). The lawyer as “friend” has no right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses or to call defence witnesses.
In April 2003, Specialized Criminal Courts replaced the Special Courts in South Darfur. The Specialized Criminal Courts are headed by a civilian judge only. Though, in one improvement, they accept legal representation for the accused during the trial session, appeal is not allowed except appeal against sentences such as the death penalty, amputation or life imprisonment, which can be made within seven days to the Chief Justice of South Darfur State. His decision is final, which means that such sentences are no longer to be reviewed by the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court of Sudan, therefore restricting further the chances of appeal for persons convicted to death or amputation under the Specialized Criminal Courts. The procedures of the Specialized Criminal Courts are still summary and the regulations on the use of confessions as evidence are similar to those of the Special Courts. Lawyers claim that, despite now being able to represent the accused before the Specialized Criminal Courts, they are not allowed to visit them in detention prior to the trial session. Normally they have only limited right to question prosecution witnesses and to call defence witnesses. Special Courts in North and West Darfur States still operate according to the 2001 decrees.
Arbitrary justice: Darfur before February 2003
Between 2001 and 2003 the Government of Sudan often reacted to the growing complaints from the sedentary population of attacks and the rise of banditry in Darfur by indiscriminate arrests. “Arab” and “African” ethnic groups were all the victims of this arbitrary justice. In April 2002 136 members of the Rizeiqat (Arab) ethnic group in South Darfur were arrested on charges of armed banditry (haraba) for an attack against members of the Ma’aliya, another Arab ethnic group. After an unfair trial before a Special Court where lawyers were only allowed to defend as “friends” and the judge refused to consider allegations that confessions had been extracted by torture, 88 defendants, including two children, were sentenced to death. Two years later, the case remains under appeal and the defendants remain on death row.
Until the beginning of 2003, action was taken against those from nomad groups who allegedly attacked villages. But sometimes it was heavy-handed, hitting leaders of both communities who were detained in incommunicado detention without charge or trial.
§ For instance, after an attack (said by the government to be a revenge attack for the killing of an Arab) by an armed Arab group on Shoba village near Kabkabiya on 28 April 2002 when 17 people were killed and 16 injured, 10 Shoba community leaders were arrested and detained, mostly incommunicado, for four months in Shala Prison in al-Fasher, in Port Sudan Prison and then under house arrest in Wad Medani. At the same time a number of leaders of Arab groups were also arrested and held incommunicado for some months; they include Musa Hilal, the Nazer (chief) of the Mahamid, said to be a leader of the Janjawid, and Shaikh Abdel Baqi Abdel Rahman Abdel Baqi of the Zeilat.
At other times those who were rounded up were tried in a trial so unfair that it left permanent doubt as to their guilt.
· For instance, 38 members of various ethnic groups were arrested in January 2003 and accused of killing 35 people from Singita village on 31 January 2002. They were held in incommunicado detention for two months and tried before a Specialised Criminal Court in Nyala in a grossly unfair trial; they were defended by just three lawyers who were allowed to ask only four questions each. Evidence from prosecution witnesses was inconsistent, but nevertheless 26 defendants, including one 15-year-old boy, were sentenced to death on 26 April 2003. Lawyers claimed that the real perpetrators came from another ethnic group and those detained were arbitrarily arrested. A Special Appeal Court commuted the sentence on the boy to 25 lashes; the appeal on the others condemned to death is still pending before the Supreme Court.
Darfur: Detentions since April 2003
Since the decision was made by April 2003 to use repression rather than reconciliation to repress the revolt of the SLA, and later of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), there have been no further arrests or detentions of those accused of attacking villages and killing villagers of sedentary groups (though trials of those already in detention continued). The nomad militias, the Janjawid, appear to have been given free rein to attack villages, burn houses and kill civilians.
Meanwhile, there were dozens of arrests mostly in towns throughout Darfur. Most of those arrested appear to have been suspected of links with the SLA or the JEM; many of the arrests appear to have been arbitrary. Many appear to have been arrested simply because they were members of the same ethnic group or relatives of members of the SLA and the JEM; others appeared to be arrested because they enjoyed a high status within their community. The arrests of 2003 were characterised by the fact that those detained were only extremely rarely brought before any judicial authority. They were held incommunicado for up to five months in poor conditions, often amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and there were frequent reports of torture.
The detention of suspects for up to nine months without charge is allowed under Article 31 of the National Security Forces Act. Article 32 gives the detainee the right to inform and communicate with his family only “if it does not prejudice the progress of the investigation”; the same article states that a detainee should not be hurt “physically or morally” and states that an attorney from the prosecutor’s office niyaba) should inspect places of detention. However, these limited safeguards have been consistently ignored. Article 33 gives the national security agency immunity from prosecution.
The September 2003 ceasefire envisaged a prisoner exchange, and a large number of detainees were released by the army and by the armed groups. However arrests recommenced on a smaller scale soon after the ceasefire was signed on 6 September.
The ceasefire was renewed but by November 2003 it had collapsed. In November and December scores of people were detained. Many of them had been detained on previous occasions. Those detained were consistently held incommunicado, normally not brought before a judge and frequently tortured and ill-treated.
After strong pressure from the international community a further ceasefire was signed on 8 April 2004. Article 5 of the ceasefire agreement stated that: “The parties have decided to free all the prisoners of war and all other persons detained because of the armed conflict in Darfur;” A number of detainees were released but many of those held in connection with the conflict remained in detention. In addition, some detainees arrested in connection with the conflict, including lawyers, were transferred to elsewhere in Sudan; some were held in the notorious, mosquito-ridden Debek Prison north of Khartoum (they were transferred to other prisons at the beginning of May 2004 after strong protests). Other detainees arrested in connection with the conflict, including members of the Popular Congress , were held in Kober Prison, Wad Medani Prison and other detention centres in Sudan. Many of those detained were prisoners of conscience, detained solely for the non-violent expression of their beliefs. Among them was Dr Mudawi Ibrahim Ahmed, the director of a human rights organization with links with Darfur, who remained under house arrest. After carrying out a hunger strike to demand a trial, he is the only one of more than 100 detainees to be undergoing trial on vague charges which carry the possibility of the death penalty.
The National Security Forces Act encourages the security forces to ignore the courts, and this is what has happened in Darfur over the past year with regard to political arrests. One of the few political cases known to have come to court since April 2003 is that of al-Tayeb Ali Ahmed, who was tried with two others before the al-Fasher Special Court and sentenced to death on 27 January 2004 for offenses against the state, including “waging war against the state” (Penal Code Article 51). He and his co-defendants were arrested in November 2003 and charged in connection with the SLA attack on al-Fasher airport in April 2003 (although those arrested earlier in connection with the attack had already been released under the terms of the September 2003 ceasefire). During the period of his detention, the security forces allegedly tortured him by beating him with sticks, pipes, hoses and hands, and he was denied any medical treatment. During the trial the defendants had no legal representation and were reportedly convicted on the basis of their confessions taken under torture. Lawyers were only alerted to the case by chance and submitted an appeal, which is still pending, on the last day of the seven-day legal appeal period.
Detention of Prisoners of Conscience
The Sudanese government has not only banned free discussion of Darfur in the newspapers, it has severely limited the diffusion of information and banned the diffusion of comments which criticise government policy on Darfur. Those targeted have been journalists, media workers, lawyers and human rights activists from Darfur.
Some of those detained, including many high profile detainees, have been arrested in Darfur and later transferred to prisons elsewhere in the Sudan. Many people originating from Darfur have been arrested in Khartoum, Omdurman and other cities.
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
| العنوان |
الكاتب |
Date |
| من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-08-04, 01:53 AM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-08-04, 01:56 AM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-08-04, 01:58 AM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-08-04, 01:59 AM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-08-04, 02:00 AM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-08-04, 03:14 PM |
 Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | waleedi399 | 06-08-04, 03:59 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-08-04, 04:26 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | maha abdella | 06-08-04, 04:33 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-08-04, 04:38 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | maha abdella | 06-08-04, 04:42 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | مارد | 06-08-04, 04:49 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-09-04, 09:15 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | Imad El amin | 06-09-04, 10:55 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | Tumadir | 06-09-04, 11:15 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-10-04, 01:43 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | Kostawi | 06-10-04, 06:35 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-12-04, 07:32 AM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | مراويد | 06-12-04, 09:50 AM |
 Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | waleedi399 | 06-12-04, 10:59 AM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | Kobista | 06-12-04, 01:35 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | Raja | 06-13-04, 12:40 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | elmahasy | 06-13-04, 06:00 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-14-04, 08:51 AM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | elmahasy | 06-14-04, 01:22 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | nada ali | 06-14-04, 08:53 AM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | hamid hajer | 06-14-04, 11:18 AM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | Roada | 06-14-04, 03:44 PM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | Kostawi | 07-09-04, 09:54 AM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | Kobista | 07-09-04, 11:01 AM |
 Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | ahmed haneen | 07-10-04, 02:22 AM |
| Re: من منظمة العفو الدولية حول دارفور – عدد من الوثائق | مراويد | 07-12-04, 00:01 AM |
|
| |
nada ali
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست