Ahemad (Represented by Justice for Human Rights (JHR), and Aman Organization) v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 621/16) [2022] ACHPR 17 (9 March 2022)

C "'f 1 ACHPR ( \ Commission uuw, . Human and Peoples' on Rights f African Human Rights our Collective Responsibility COMMUNICATION 621/16 Mr. Fadel EI-Mawala Human Rights Hosny Ahemad (Represented by Justice for (JHR), and Aman Organization) v. The Arab Republic of Egypt /. -��:,:-: ( ;,�-:__ :,t. SN£ .q ""•t, �· ,.· ,4�,�·\ Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) ·to -Q '" r J �:· J; Mrs. Abi Executive Com African Peoples' Rights Decision on Strike Out of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Communication 621/16: Mr. Fadel El-Mawala Hosny Ahemad (Represented by Justice for Human Rights (JHR), and Aman Organization) v. The Arab Republic of Egypt Summary of the Communication 1. On 16 April 2016, the Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Secretariat), received a Complaint from the Organization of European Alliance for Human Rights (AED), Justice for Human Rights (JHR), and Aman Organization (the Complainants), on behalf of Mr. Fadel El-Mawala Hosny Ahemad (the Victim), against the Arab Republic of Egypt (the Respondent State). 2. The Complainants allege that on 15 August 2013, the Victim was arrested by police forces and the army from his work place, "Association of Engineers Club," in Alexandria. They add that since the date of the Victim's arrest, he has been detained in Burg Al Arab prison in Alexandria. 3. The Complainants allege that the fabricated charges against the Victim by the authorities included "that he and others took part in a demonstration composed of more than five people," "made public peace at risk with the use of force, violence, couples with the crime a felony murders of seven people," and "membership in the Muslim Brotherhood." 4. The Complainants add that these alleged accusations against the Victim by the authorities resulted in case No. 27868 of 2014, Criminal El-Montaza of Alexandria, whereby the trial was conducted in violation of international human rights standards. They further alleged that as a result of this mock trial against the Victim, his case was referred to the "Grand Mufti to issue his opinion on the death sentence on an innocent person." 5. The Complainants further add that" the court will issue a ruling sentence hearing when it referred the case to the Mufti." on June 05 2016 because it disclosed confirming "death its conviction the death sentence" 6. The Complainants submit that as a result of the death sentence passed against the Victim, the authorities have sought to "eliminate inherent people in Egypt." 7. The Complainants allege that those responsible for the alleged violations of the African Charter are" the authorities the current the Minister President of Defence - Sidqie Abdou[ Fattah Subhie; - President el-Sisi; (ii) the Minister. of Justiee'.•;; st 2Rt ;-::�\� and (vi) the Minister of the State of Egypt after the coup d'etat: (i) being: •¢JlnJ��i. Q,:; (iii) 8. Regarding the need to exhaust domestic remedies, the Comrl•\p¥nt.sf,i:;p -� �­ _st�o;11t since the revolution of 25 January 2011 and military coup in\�gyJ,t, tb_e -,fh of domestic remedies has become impossible, following the\ oµ.'k_1 -�n �Tu£;¢d \ �r"1t, � ,_ . I DES 0� c/' / \� )-o::��E �0� the democratically elected government of the people, the system has subdued itself to military rulers and not the rule of law. 9. In view of the foregoing, the Complainants allege that the crimes committed by the Respondent State against the Victim and his family include the crime of arbitrary executions, "discrimination original and tribal and the crime of "violating segregation," peoples," human rights in the honest "elimination of the judicature." 10. The Complainants submit that the Complaint has been forwarded to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in conformity with Article 56 of the African Charter and has never been forwarded to any other international institution. 11. The Complainants add that this Complaint has been filed within a reasonable time in accordance with Article 56(6) of the Charter, as they had been awaiting the outcome/judgements of the Egyptian courts on the issues placed before them so they could know whether the courts could deliver qualitative judgements, which they later realized was impossible. 12. Finally, the Complainants enjoin the African Commission to draw inspiration from international law, especially those dealing with human and people rights as stated in Articles 60 and 61 of the African Charter, and cites several international treaties for this purpose. Articles alleged to have been violated 13. The Complainants allege violations of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 6 and 61 of the African Charter. Prayers 14. The Complainants request the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Commission) to: a. Issue an order urging the Respondent State to "adopt interim measures and suspend the death penalty, which was referred to the Mufti for ratification;" b. Issue an order urging the Respondent State to immediately release the Victim and "to stop all forms of torture encountered because of the fifth decade of life;" c. Find that the Respondent State has committed the crimes of racial segregation, mass killings and enforced disappearances; _ ... _ d. Find the Respondent State _has elir�linated the _indigen�1%f�l�� 0,., tortured its opponents and v10lated rights of detamees, P;�Jmers meno � and children, and denied them justice; ·/:�] i%�; \lJ c ne � � e. Request the Respondent State to stop the v10lahon of all the ngh m . . in the complaint and to prosecute those responsible for fa�1-ica:ting,. t </7 charges against the Victim; \. •\_ ( . "1FR1CP-II-I 0,'<'v_., ;:i <v"')/ "'.:i·'o,1,,----� \)� '· . �1E ET Q'i:.':> __. .,.r ·•-�I'(;·,,; �-� �;;; f. Issue a judgement compelling the Respondent State to annul the death sentence issued against the Victim; g. Request the Respondent State to compensate the Victim and his family the equivalent amount of Fifty (50) Million United States Dollars, for the harm and damage caused to him and his family; h. Request the creation of an independent court outside Egypt to try the Victim for the charges brought against him. Procedure 15. The Secretariat received the Complaint on 16 April 2016 and acknowledged receipt of the same. 16. The Commission was seized of this Communication during the 20th Extra­ Ordinary Session held from 09 to June 18 2016, in Banjul, The Gambia, following which the decision on seizure was transmitted to both parties. 17. On 06 June 2016 and 17 June 2016 respectively, the Secretariat informed both Parties of its decision to be seized of the Communication. The letter to the Complainants requested submission of arguments on the admissibility of the Communication within two months of the notification, as stipulated in Rule 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure (2010). 18. On 17 May 2021, the Secretariat informed the Complainants that the Communication would be tabled for striking out for want of diligent prosecution, on account of the Complainant's failure to respond to the Commission's request for submissions on the admissibility of the Communication, and further that the deadline for doing so had passed. Analysis of the Commission on Strike Out: 19. Rule 105(1) of the Commission's Rule of Procedure (2010) provides that when the Commission is seized of a Complaint, it shall request the Complainant to present evidence and arguments on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months. 20. Additionally, Rule 113 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure (2010) provides that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission, either Party may apply to the Commission for an extension of the stipulated period and the Commission may grant the said application. 22. Almost six years have lapsed since the expiry of the deadline and no evidence and arguments have been submitted by the Complainant on the admissibility of the Communication. 23. In light of the above, the Commission finds that the Complainant has not shown any interest in prosecuting this Communication and therefore the Commission does not have sufficient information upon which to determine the admissibility of the said Communication. 24. The Commission recalls the following jurisprudence which were similarly struck out for want of diligent prosecution: Communication Mohammed Ali Subaie v. The Arab Republic and 639/16: Dr. Abdel Hay Faramawy and 4 Ors) v. Arab Republic Communication Alliance Others v. Egypt;3 and Communication Communication Leone.5 Mr. Mohammed Abdel Hay Faramawy 623/16: Miles Investments v. Togo;4 and v. Republic 387/10: Kofi Yamagnane 544/15: European & 2Others for Human Rights (AED) and 3 612/16: Ahmed of Egypt;1 Communication 637/16 by of Egypt;2 Q( Sierra and 2 Ors (Represented '- '<1,,_ -�.) -0 -~ � �-,};���� .. , � ff"�.)_ �. r.. Decision of the Commission Out on Strike 25. In the light of the analysis made above, the Commission decides �o, stri!s� o Jnj; Communication against the Arab Republic of Egypt, for .-w,aq;i. . . ij:fge' t prosecution. ,i,,,. 1C4/Nt oE. S •. '7 :,� \."'s \� 1 Communication 612/16: 2 Communication 637/16 Abdel Hay Faramawy 3 Communication 544/15 4 Communication 387/10: 5 Communication 623/16: Ahmed Mohammed and 639/16 Mr. Mohammed and 4 Ors) v Arab Republic Ali Subaie v. The Arab Republic of Egypt (2017) ACHPR Abdel Hay Faramawy and 2 Ors (Represented by Dr. of Egypt (2019) ACHPR Alliance European Kofi Yamagnane Miles Investments for Human Rights v. Togo (2015) ACHPR & 2Others v. Republic of Sierra Leone (2020) ACHPR (AED) and 3 Others v. Egypt (2018) ACHPR 5