Letter: Arbitrary conviction of Qatari poet

20 Oct 2015 | About Index, Campaigns, mobile, Statements

Farida Shaheed
Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights

Mónica Pinto
Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers

David Kaye
Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

Seong-Phil Hong
Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Special Procedures Branch
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
8-14 avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

Dear Special Procedure mandate holders,

We are writing to urge you to pay continuing attention to the arbitrary arrest, detention, and conviction of the Qatari poet Mohammed al-Ajami, widely known as Ibn al-Dheeb.

Al-Ajami’s case has been the subject of a December 2012 communication to the government of Qatar from the Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights, the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, and the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers1, discernable steps to address the issues set forth in the communication.

The arrest of Mohammed al-Ajami for the contents of his poetry is a violation of his right to freedom of expression and his right not to be arbitrarily deprived of liberty, and his conviction to 15 years in prison results further from a violation of his right to a fair trial. Amnesty International considers him a prisoner of conscience and he should be released immediately and unconditionally.

Various UN mechanisms have addressed al-Ajami’s case, as well as the human rights situation in Qatar more generally. Shortly before al-Ajami’s conviction in November 2012, the UN Committee against Torture criticized violations of due process by the State of Qatar in its consideration of the country’s second periodic report.2 The Committee recommended that Qatar “promptly take effective measures to ensure that all detainees, including non-citizens, are afforded, in practice, all fundamental legal safeguards from the very outset of detention.” It also expressed concern that persons detained under provisions of the Protection of Society Law (Law No. 17 of 2002), the Law on Combating Terrorism (Law No. 3 of 2004),and the Law on the State Security Agency (Law No. 5 of 2003) “may be held for a lengthy period of time without charge and fundamental safeguards, including access to a lawyer, an independent doctor and the right to notify a family member and to challenge the legality of their detention before a judge.” The Committee specifically cited Mohammed al-Ajami as an example of the fact that persons detained under these laws are often subject to incommunicado detention or solitary confinement. Though the Committee urged Qatar to amend its laws and ensure that fundamental safeguards are provided, Qatar has not taken any steps to address these concerns.

As noted above, al-Ajami’s case received additional attention from special procedures of the Human Rights Council through a joint communication issued on 21 December 2012, shortly after his original sentencing. The Special Rapporteurs in the Field of Cultural Rights, on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, and on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression expressed concern in a joint communication to the Qatari government that the arrest, detention, and sentencing of al-Ajami may have been “solely related to the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of opinion and expression.” The Special Rapporteurs further noted concerns regarding the fairness of his trial and his treatment while in detention.3

On 14 February 2013, the Qatari government responded to the UN human rights experts by asserting that the government followed the proper procedures throughout al-Ajami’s case, and that the State “[keeps] in mind [its] obligations under international conventions and standards related to human rights and their 1 but the Government of Qatar has thus far not taken any implementation.”4 We believe that the Qatari government’s response did not accurately represent the administration of justice in this case, and the authorities took no further action of which we are aware.

On 8 January 2013, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) again voiced concern over the situation of Mohammed al-Ajami. The OHCHR’s spokesperson told reporters: “We are concerned by the fairness of his trial, including the right to counsel.” She additionally pointed to allegations that al-Ajami’s initial statement may have been tampered with in order to wrongly incriminate him.

In 2014, during a review of its human rights record in the context of the Universal Periodic Review, the Government of Qatar expressly rejected a recommendation to release Mohammed al-Ajami.5 At the same session, the government pointedly accepted a recommendation to “continue and strengthen relations with OHCHR.”6 We urge you to remind the Qatari government of this commitment.To the best of our knowledge, the United Nations has not taken any action on Mohammed al-Ajami’s case since his final appeal in October 2013. Thus, we respectfully ask that you continue to dedicate attention to his case and follow up on his arbitrary imprisonment, and insist that Qatar take corrective action to address the human rights violations that have been committed against him. We also ask that you raise these concerns with the Government of Qatar and follow up on the unaddressed recommendations set forth in past communications.

While we understand that his treatment while in prison has been generally acceptable, it remains the case, in our view, that he has been unfairly tried and convicted and, for that reason, this is a matter of an ongoing injustice.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need more information or clarifications.

Yours sincerely,

Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain
Amnesty International
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information
Article 19
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
English PEN
FreeMuse
German PEN
Index on Censorship
International Federation for Human Rights
Irish PEN
PEN American Center
PEN International
Reporters Without Borders
Salam for Democracy and Human Rights
Split This Rock

Background

State security officials summoned Mohammed al-Ajami to a meeting on 16 November 2011. Upon arrival, authorities arrested him on suspicion of insulting the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, and “inciting to overthrow the ruling system.”

The charges against al-Ajami related to a 2010 poem (“The Cairo Poem”) he had recited and which the Qatari authorities allege to have criticized the Emir. The poem nevertheless referred to the Emir as “a good man” and expressed “thanks” to him, and it formed part of a ‘call-and-response’ type of exchange that is a popular form of recitation. Al-Ajami recited it during a private gathering in Cairo in August 2010, after which one of the attendees posted a video of the event online.

On 29 November 2012, a lower court sentenced al-Ajami to life imprisonment following an unfair trial. The court reportedly heard testimony from three “poetry experts” employed by the government’s culture and education ministries, who testified that the poem represents an insult to the Emir of Qatar and his son.

On 25 February 2013, an appeals court reduced al-Ajami’s life sentence to 15 years. The Court of Cassation, Qatar’s highest court, upheld the 15-year sentence on 20 October 2013. Al-Ajami’s only remaining path to freedom is a pardon from the Emir.

The administration of justice in this case has been grossly flawed and has resulted in the arbitrary detention of Mohammed al-Ajami.

We believe that the legal basis of the charges against Mohammed al-Ajami – based in Articles 134 and 136 of the Qatari Penal Code – do not constitute internationally recognizable criminal offenses, unlawfully restrict the right to freedom of expression, and expressly contradict Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The authorities held him for a prolonged period of pre-trial solitary confinement. Following his arrest on 16 November 2011, Mohammed al-Ajami was held incommunicado for three months before he was allowed visits from his family. The first trial session was held in March 2012. Throughout the pre-trial investigations and despite petitions to the judge about his treatment, he was held in solitary confinement in a very small cell.

While he was being held in solitary confinement, authorities forced al-Ajami during interrogations to sign a document falsely stating that the poem was read in a public place in the presence of the press, according to information available to our organizations. In November 2011 and, reportedly, in subsequent court sessions, the lawyer of Mohammed al-Ajami asserted to the court that the poem was recited only in private.

We are concerned that the period of pre-trial detention without charge may have exceeded even Qatar’s own laws. Court documents indicate that the duration of pre-trial detention was within the limits provided for in Qatari law – which allows, in specific circumstances, up to six months detention before trial.

However, Mohammed al-Ajami’s former lawyer indicated in writing that the period of pre-trial detention exceeded the six months provided for in law. He indicated that charges had first been set out in June 2012.

Our organizations are unable to resolve this contradiction. We urge the Special Procedures branch to investigate these competing claims.

The trial was held behind closed doors without legal basis, and the court disregarded Mohammed al-Ajami’s right to choose his own legal representation by its imposition of another lawyer in place of the one he had chosen.

There was a lack of separation of investigative and decision-making powers, infringing on the principle of impartiality. According to information available to the signatories, Mohammed al-Ajami’s lawyer requested at the first session of the Doha Criminal Court that the presiding judge exclude himself from the case as he had conducted the pre-trial investigation. The judge rejected the lawyer’s request.

Al-Ajami was denied the right to be present at the trial. During the final hearing in October 2012, the court expelled Mohammed al-Ajami for being unruly. In his absence, and without measures taken to preserve the rights of the defense, the court proceeded to schedule the judgment to be held on 29 November 2012. Mohammed al-Ajami was not informed of the date. On the day of the verdict, the prison authorities did not bring Mohammed al-Ajami to court. Nevertheless, according to sources who informed al-Ajami’s former lawyer, the judge pronounced to the court “on the attendance of Mohammed al-Ajami, we have sentenced him to life.”

State security officials in Qatar continue to detain people in the absence of due process under laws that increasingly contribute to an environment that stifles and criminalizes expression. Mohammed al-Ajami is just one of the victims of this political reality. The international community should not ignore this violation of the right to freedom of expression or the failure to ensure fair trials in Qatar.

1 The letter, dated 21 December 2012, is referenced AL Cultural rights (2009) G/SO 214 (67-17) G/SO 214 (3-3-16); QAT 1/2012 and can be accessed at https://spdb.ohchr.org/hrdb/23rd/public_-_AL_Qatar_21.12.12_(1.2012).pdf

2 See: Committee against Torture: Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Qatar, adopted by the Committee at its forty-ninth session (29 October-23 November 2012), 25 January 2013, UN reference: CAT/C/QAT/CO/2

3 The letter, dated 21 December 2012, is referenced AL Cultural rights (2009) G/SO 214 (67-17) G/SO 214 (3-3-16); QAT 1/2012 and can be accessed at: https://spdb.ohchr.org/hrdb/23rd/public_-_AL_Qatar_21.12.12_(1.2012).pdf

4 Referenced 532 and QAT 1/2012, the letter can be accessed at: https://spdb.ohchr.org/hrdb/23rd/Qatar_14.02.13_(1.2012)_rescan.pdf

5 See paragraph 125.7 of the Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Qatar, issued by the Human Rights Council at its twenty-seventh session, dated 27 June 2014, is referenced A/HRC/27/15.

6 See paragraph 122.16 of the UPR report.

From murder to bureaucratic mayhem: After Argentina’s dictatorship, what happened next for the country’s journalists

20 Oct 2015 | Magazine, mobile, Volume 44.03 Autumn 2015

What does not change over the decades is the desire of those in power to limit information which might be unsuitable to their needs. Why should Argentina be different?

Nearly four decades ago the military regime (1976-83) of General Jorge Rafael Videla went from threatening and terrorising journalists, as a means of controlling information, to murdering them. More than 100 journalists were killed during the seven-year rule of the armed forces, but that figure was hardly reported in the establishment press. The absence of that record often turned on the argument that the dead were “not real” journalists; that they were not newsroom hacks, but militants of different political organisations. The public lived in a state of denial, so the crimes were ignored: those killed “must have done something”.

Freedom of expression has moved on a bit. They don’t kill journalists anymore. Harassment is more common. For journalists of a certain age who worked through the 1970s, there has never been so much freedom to criticise a government as now.

The full version of this article is available until 28 October. You can read it here.

In the video below, Andrew Graham-Yooll, recalls fondly his time at Index on Censorship, firstly from 1973 when he began reporting from Buenos Aires, and then as editor between 1989 and 1993.

Russia: Attempted murder of Oleg Kashin a symbol of impunity for attacks on journalists

20 Oct 2015 | Europe and Central Asia, Mapping Media Freedom, mobile, News and features, Russia

russia

On 6 November 2010, prominent Russian journalist Oleg Kashin was badly beaten with a steel pipe on his doorstep and nearly killed. He suffered a broken skull and injuries to his legs and hands — including broken fingers and one amputated digit. He was hospitalised in a coma and spent months recovering. Dmitry Medvedev, who was then President of Russia, visited him promising that the case would be solved and the attackers would be punished.

At the time, Kashin’s editor told the BBC that the attack was retribution for articles he had written and that he had recently reported on anti-Kremlin protests and extremist rallies.

Two months prior to the assault, Kashin had had an online quarrel with Andrey Turchak, the powerful governor of the Pskov region. According to the police investigation into the attack, the alleged organiser Alexander Gorbunov paid 3.3 million roubles ($53,000) to ex-employees of the security department of Zaslon, a company owned by Turchak’s family, to beat Kashin. Later the wife of Danila Veselov, one of the defendants, gave an interview to the Kommersant newspaper, claiming that her husband had met Turchak before the attack and had recorded the governor saying that Kashin had to be beaten so he “could not write anymore”.

After five years of investigation, in September 2015, Kashin publicly named the men who were officially accused of attempted murder. Despite evidence of the possible involvement of Turchak, who is a son of a friend of Putin, he has not been questioned about the attack.

On 3 October, Kashin posted A Letter to the Leaders of the Russian Federation on his blog. In it, Kashin wrote about his frustrations, saying: “Your will in Russia is stronger than any law, and simply obeying the law is an impossible fantasy.” The open letter accuses the government of hindering the investigation into his violent assault and ends as a strong indictment of the whole political system in Russia.

Moreover, the investigator who arrested the attackers was suspended from the case. His successor was quoted in Kashin’s letter saying: “There’s the law, but there’s also the man in charge, and the will of the boss is always stronger than any law.”

In his letter, Kashin directly accused the leaders of the country of protecting Turchak from any judicial responsibility.

“You’ve decided to side with your Governor Turchak; you’re protecting him and his gang of thugs and murderers. It would make sense for somebody like me — a victim of this gang — to be outraged about all this and tell you that it’s dishonest and unjust, but I understand that such words would only make you laugh. You have complete and absolute control over the adoption and implementation of laws in Russia, and yet you still live like criminals.”

Kashin admitted that he does not expect a fair punishment for the alleged mastermind of his beating: “I can see perfectly well that the worst thing Turchak faces now is a quiet resignation, timed long after any developments in my case. This is the only justice citizens can expect, and it means that your system isn’t capable of any kind of justice at all.”

Kashin’s case has become the symbol of impunity for attacks and murders of journalists. Hundreds of leading Russian journalists signed a petition that demands the police question Turchak. Some of them publicly boycotted a literature festival in the Pskov region, while the Kremlin and the Gorbunov’s press office remained silent.

Kashin said he wishes all journalists would boycott Turchak and continue to send requests about his role in Kashin’s case to government officials. However, that level of solidarity seems to be impossible when so much of the media is directly run by the Kremlin and do not dare to do anything without its approval, said Kashin. He also holds out no hope for support from the Russian Union of Journalists, which he describes as “a weird organization” that doesn’t function properly.

According to Glasnost Defence Foundation, over 150 journalists were killed in Russia in last 15 years. The majority of these cases remain unsolved. Those who are accused of obstruction of professional activities of journalists, rarely face a fair punishment. Between 2006-2014, only one such defendant was sentenced to jail.

The murder of Igor Domnikov, a journalist with Novaya Gazeta, in 2000 has become the first case in the history of modern Russia where the mastermind behind the killing of a journalist was officially accused. In this case, it was a former Vice-Governor of Lipetsk region Sergey Dobrovskiy. After 15 years of investigations, he was summoned to a court in April 2015, but a month later the case against him was dropped due to the statute of limitations.

Kashin said he will not be surprised if his case goes the same way. However, he stressed that the difference is that the investigators don’t need 10 years more as there is already evidence.

“We can see that the government is just not interested in punishing criminals,” Kashin said.

 

Mapping Media Freedom


Click on the bubbles to view reports or double-click to zoom in on specific regions. The full site can be accessed at https://mappingmediafreedom.org/

Proposed UK government measures on extremism will criminalise legitimate speech

19 Oct 2015 | About Index, Campaigns, Counter Terrorism, mobile, Statements

In its new extremism strategy, the government is proposing measures that will criminalise legitimate speech and shrink the space for open debate throughout society. There is already a wealth of legislation that deals with criminal offences, including the Terrorism Act and the Public Order Act, and there is no need for new laws that will seriously harm everyone’s right to freedom of expression in this country.

“We are concerned that the extremism strategy outlined this morning has the potential to massively damage the reputation of the British educational establishment – universities in particular which should be the home of debate and academic academic inquiry. This will have the effect of ramping up a climate of fear where both lecturers and students are afraid to speak,” said Jodie Ginsberg, CEO, Index on Censorship.

“The government has created an impossible bind for itself: in the name of protecting our values, it’s now seeking to undermine the most fundamental value of all for democracy – freedom of expression. This is a deeply misguided policy that will not only stigmatise minorities, it will criminalise political speech across society and introduce a culture of caution,” said Jo Glanville, director, English PEN.

The government’s counter-terrorism policy is already having a chilling effect on freedom of expression. Over the past six months, a series of incidents across society indicates that arts and educational institutions are censoring and self-censoring in the mistaken belief that any exploration or discussion of extremism is or may be illegal.

This includes the cancellation of the National Youth Theatre’s production of the play Homegrown, the banning of a Mimsy art work at the Mall Galleries that satirised Isis and the questioning of a school child who discussed ecoterrorism in class.

The space for political speech and artistic expression is rapidly diminishing.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK