[Embargoed for: 23 November 2004]
Public
amnesty international
Lebanon
Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri: Torture and unfair trial
November 2004
Summary
AI Index: MDE 18/003/2004
Political prisoners, Samir Gea’gea and Jirjis al-Khouri are serving life
sentences for their alleged involvement in politically-motivated killings.
They have been held since 1994 at the Ministry of Defence Detention Centre
(MDDC) in solitary confinement mostly in cruel, inhuman and degrading
conditions, following unfair trials.
This report describes Amnesty International’s concerns about the pre-trial
detention, the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and unfair trials of
Samir Gea’gea’ (leader of the banned Lebanese Forces (LF)) and Jirjis
al-Khouri, a member of the LF. In 1994 they were arrested along with
scores of LF members after the bombing of the Sayidat al-Najat (Lady of
Deliverance) church in Junieh, in February 1994, in which 10 people died.
Both men suffered serious violations and irregularities in pre-trial
detention at the MDDC, which, at the time of their arrest, was an unlawful
detention centre in violation of Lebanese law and international standards
governing detention. Jirjis al-Khouri told the judge at his trial that he
was tortured to “confess” during his interrogation, by members of the
military intelligence. Both men were held incommunicado, without access to
lawyers or family members, during interrogation; they were not brought
promptly before a judge to review the lawfulness of their detention. Their
trials fell far short of international standards. In violation of
international standards for fair trial, Jirjis al-Khouri’s “confession”
was accepted as the main evidence against him. Amnesty International
believes that any statement made involuntarily or extracted under torture
or ill-treatment should be excluded as evidence in judicial or other
proceedings, except where it is evidence against a person accused of
perpetrating torture.
Amnesty International is concerned that Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis
al-Khouri continue to be subjected to ill-treatment in detention. Over ten
years after their arrest, they remain in solitary confinement at the MDDC.
They are not allowed to communicate with other detainees, are denied
access to newspapers, radio, TV and any literature of a political nature.
They receive visits from their families on specified days of the week
which are restricted and subject to prior approval by the Public
Prosecutor, and are conducted in the presence of military intelligence
officers.
Cut off from the outside world the two political prisoners have apparently
suffered physically and mentally. Samir Gea’gea’ suffers from, among other
things, osteomalacia, a disease of the bones possibly due to a lack of
exposure to regular and adequate sunlight. In September 2004 the
authorities announced that he had been moved to a new cell, apparently
with improved conditions.
Amnesty International is calling on the Lebanese authorities to release
Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri immediately, or promptly give them a
retrial before an ordinary independent criminal court, in proceedings
which adhere to international standards for fair trial; and to ensure that
all allegations of torture and ill-treatment be investigated independently.
The organization is also urging the authorities to: ensure the justice
system undergoes reformation, including the abolition of the single-tier
courts and the death penalty; implement all relevant international
treaties and standards; improve detention conditions in the MDDC including
by ensuring that they are brought in line with international standards. In
particular the authorities should take immediate steps to ensure that
detainees are well-treated and not subjected to any form of torture and
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
KEYWORDS:
This report summarizes a 13 page document (6,214 words), Lebanon Samir
Gea’gea and Jirjis al-Khouri: Torture and unfair trial (AI Index: MDE
18/003/2004) issued by Amnesty International in November 2004. Anyone
wishing for further details or to take action on this issue should consult
the full document. An extensive range of our materials is available at
http://www.amnesty.org and Amnesty International news releases can be
received by email: http://www.amnesty.org/email/email_updates.html
INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, 1 EASTON STREET, LONDON WC1X 0DW, UNITED
KINGDOM
[EMBARGOED FOR: 23 November 2004 ] Public
amnesty international
Lebanon
Samir Gea'gea' and Jirjis al-Khouri: Torture and unfair trial
Samir Gea’gea after arrest. © private Jirjis al-Khouri, 1992. © private
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.
Contextual Background.
The arrests of Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri
Pre-trial detention and torture at the MDDC..
Trials before the Justice Council
Prolonged solitary confinement at the MDDC..
Lebanon’s obligations under human rights law..
Conclusions and Recommendations.
Lebanon
Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri: Torture and unfair trial
Introduction
Leader of the banned Lebanese Forces (LF), Samir Gea’gea’, and Jirjis
al-Khouri, a member of the LF, have been held at the Ministry of Defence
Detention Centre (MDDC) in Beirut since 1994. Both are serving life
sentences for their alleged involvement in politically-motivated killings
and are being held in cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions, after
unfair trials. Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri are now the only
political prisoners held following their trials at the MDDC.
In this report, Amnesty International documents human rights violations
suffered by Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri during their incommunicado
pre-trial detention, their interrogation, their trial before the Justice
Council, and their imprisonment at the MDDC. The main human rights
concerns are:
Jirjis al-Khouri was not allowed access to lawyers during interrogations
while he was held incommunicado in pre-trial detention, and was not
brought promptly before a judge to review the lawfulness of his detention;
While held incommunicado in pre-trial detention Jirjis al-Khouri was made
to believe that he was a witness, and was not informed as required by law
of charges being brought against him;
While held incommunicado in pre-trial detention Jirjis al-Khouri was
reportedly tortured and ill-treated, and the “confessions” he claimed he
made under torture were subsequently accepted as the main evidence in his
trial;
Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri were unfairly tried before the Justice
Council, a special court whose decisions are final and not subject to
appeal and which so far has failed to investigate allegations of torture
and other abuses reportedly committed during pre-trial detention;
· Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri have been held for over ten years in
solitary confinement in cruel inhuman and degrading conditions, in a
manner detrimental to their physical and mental health.
Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri, like scores of other LF members, may
have been victims of human rights violations committed in a climate of
political repression and intimidation. Amnesty International is concerned
that there is no apparent prospect of these two long term political
prisoners being retried by the Justice Council. The organization is,
therefore, calling for Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri to be released
or promptly retried, before an ordinary and independent criminal court, in
proceedings that conform with international fair trial standards, and for
the allegations of torture and ill-treatment to be investigated. Over the
last ten years the Lebanese authorities have ignored calls by Amnesty
International and other human rights groups for the injustice visited upon
the two men, including unfair trial, lack of pre-trial guarantees and
allegations of torture in incommunicado detention, to be rectified.
Contextual Background
On 27 February 1994, a bomb exploded in Sayidat a-Najat (Lady of
Deliverance) church in Zuq Michael in Junieh, near Beirut, killing 10
people and injuring others. In March and April 1994 scores of members and
supporters of the Lebanese Forces (LF), the main Christian militia during
the Lebanese civil war, including its leader Samir Gea’gea’, were rounded
up and detained for various periods in connection with the bombing.
Following these arrests, the authorities banned the LF alleging that it
was responsible for the church bombing, even though the investigation into
the incident had not reached a conclusion. Consequently, there were
additional restrictions on the freedom of expression and association of LF
affiliates and suspected supporters, as well as other opposition groups.
These measures led to serious human rights violations, including arbitrary
arrest, torture, and unfair trials.
During the interrogation of LF members held in connection with the church
bombing, the examining magistrate announced that he had discovered
evidence indicating that the LF - led by Samir Gea’gea’ - had perpetrated
the assassination of the leader of the Liberal National Party, Dany
Cham’oun and members of his family in October 1990. Subsequently, Samir
Gea’gea’ and other LF officials were indicted for the killings; some were
indicted in absentia. They were then referred to the Justice Council, the
highest criminal court in Lebanon, in connection with both the church
bombing and the killing of Dany Cham’oun and his family. Accordingly the
Justice Council proceeded with a concurrent trial for Samir Gea’gea’ and
other LF officials accused in both cases. In June 1995, the Justice
Council issued a verdict in relation to the Dany Cham’oun case, sentencing
Samir Gea’gea’ to death, immediately commuted to life imprisonment.
In the case of Samir Gea’gea’ and his involvement in the political killing
of Dany Cham’oun, his defence lawyers argued that the crime took place
during the civil war and was therefore covered by the General Amnesty Law
of 1991 (Law No. 84/91). However, this argument was dismissed by the
Justice Council which said the killing, despite having taken place during
that period, fell within the category of crimes exempted from the Amnesty
Law, and that the Justice Council had jurisdiction to pursue it.
The General Amnesty Law granted an amnesty for crimes committed before 28
March 1991. It was promulgated by the Lebanese government on 26 August
1991 and applied to crimes committed by all militias and armed groups
throughout the civil war. The Amnesty Law was intended to encourage the
‘turning of a new page’ in the political history of Lebanon. However, it
did allow for the exclusion of certain crimes, the most important of which
are found in Article 3 of the Law, which says the amnesty does not cover "crimes
of assassination or attempted assassination of religious figures,
political leaders, and foreign or Arab diplomats".
The Lebanese public appears to be divided over the Amnesty Law: while some
argue, as does the government, that the Law facilitates peace and
reconciliation, others believe it provides impunity for those responsible
for human rights abuses in the past and prevents the emergence of truth.
Amnesty International has on several occasions expressed its concern about
the Lebanese Amnesty Law of 1991. In its report Lebanon: Human Rights
Developments and Violations (MDE 18/1997) Amnesty International stated:
“In general, Amnesty International believes that there should be thorough
investigations into allegations of human rights violations. The object of
such investigations should be to determine individual and collective
responsibility and to provide a full account of truth to the victim, their
relatives and society. Investigations must be undertaken by impartial
institutions, and must be granted the necessary authority and resources
for their task. The results of such investigations should be made public.
Amnesty International believes that a new future of true and lasting peace
and human rights protection in Lebanon is only possible if the country
comes to terms with its past through a process aimed at investigating and
establishing the truth of the war period and its related abuses.”
Apart from the general concern that the amnesty gives impunity to those
who have committed human rights violations, the exemptions prescribed by
the Amnesty Law have in effect created an environment which allows for
selectivity and discrimination. The fact that certain crimes such as
killings of religious and political personalities are exempt from the
Amnesty Law has led to discrimination between victims of human rights
violations during the war on grounds of their status - that is, only those
violations committed against political and religious leaders are to be
pursued to the exclusion of others. Likewise, the Amnesty Law states that
those committing crimes covered by the amnesty, after the date of its
promulgation, will be liable for prosecution and will also be liable for
all the offences they committed during the war. This approach seems to be
unfair and hampers attempts to address multiple human rights violations
committed during the war, or to bring all perpetrators of these violations
to justice, in an equal and fair manner.
The trials of Samir Gea’gea’ and LF supporters are examples of the
apparent selectiveness of this approach. For example, while asserting its
jurisdiction over crimes such as assassination of political and religious
leaders, the Justice Council has not actively pursued such cases apart
from those allegedly committed by Samir Gea’gea’. This raises concerns
about the impartiality and fairness of the court in dealing with the
politically motivated assassinations during the war. This may be due to
the fact that the Justice Council can only act if and when such cases are
referred to it by the Council of Ministers, whose decisions in this regard
may have been politically motivated. Although the case of the killing of
Dany Cham’oun was originally referred to the Justice Council on 30 October
1990, shortly after the killing took place, it did not initiate and
investigation or pursue Samir Gea’gea’ for this crime until 1994 when he
and scores of LF members were arrested in connection with the church
bombing and at a time when the LF’s relations with the government had
broken down[1]. It is not yet clear why the Justice Council has not
initiated proceedings in the cases referred to it by the government even
after the security and political situation gradually stabilised by 1992.
The arrests of Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri
Samir Gea’gea’ was arrested on 21 April 1994 along with scores of other LF
members rounded up in mass arrests in March and April, following the
February 1994 bombing of the Sayidat al-Najat (Lady of Deliverance) church
in Zuq-Mikhael in Junieh which resulted in the death of 10 people and the
injury of others. Jirjis al-Khouri handed himself over to the authorities
on 15 March 1994, a week after military intelligence officers stormed his
family’s home and arrested the entire family, including his ten year old
sister. However, after members of the family were released, they were
subjected to intimidation and harassment between 1994 and 2002. During
that period their home was raided time and time again by members of the
military intelligence and other security departments, and their personal
belongings, including valuables and books were reportedly confiscated. On
his arrest, Jirjis al-Khouri was handcuffed and blindfolded and taken to
the MDDC where he was held incommunicado for about six weeks.
Samir Gea’gea’, a medical doctor by training, was born in ‘Ayn al-Rummanah
in Beirut in 1952. In 1986 he became leader of the LF, the main Christian
militia during the civil war. Jirjis al-Khouri, a computer technician, was
born in Tyre in south Lebanon in 1968. His exact position within the LF at
the time of his arrest is not clear, but he was allegedly a member of the
LF security department. He was previously a member of the Phalange Party’s
students’ bureau.
Pre-trial detention and torture at the MDDC
There were serious violations and irregularities in Samir Gea’gea’ and
Jirjis al-Khouri’s pre-trial detention at the MDDC. The detainees were
arrested without warrant and were held incommunicado without access to
lawyers or families. They were not brought promptly before a judge to
review the lawfulness of their detention. Amnesty International is not
aware of any habeas corpus remedies made available to them during their
unlawful detention.
Both defendants were denied access to their lawyers during their
interrogations at the MDDC. At a later stage lawyers were allowed to see
them only for short periods of time and at intervals which would not allow
them to perform their defence tasks properly. The defendants did not have
unrestricted access to their legal papers, and defence lawyers were not
allowed to communicate with them during trial proceedings. In the case of
Jirjis al-Khouri, these flaws led defence lawyers to argue that all
statements obtained during preliminary interrogations should be declared
null and void as most were not carried out by authorized judicial
officers, in contravention of the Code of Criminal Procedures.
Following his incommunicado detention and during the course of almost one
year, Jirjis al-Khouri was allowed to see his lawyer only three times,
briefly and in a very restricted manner. While held incommunicado he was
not informed of the charges brought against him and only knew of them when
the indictments were issued. During interrogation while held incommunicado,
he was made to believe that he was a witness rather than a defendant, and
was not informed as required by law of his rights in pre-trial detention
nor of the charges being brought against him.
Jirjis al-Khouri told the court he was tortured during incommunicado
pre-trial detention, and stated that “confessions” – which he retracted –
were extracted as a result. He said he was tortured by members of military
intelligence who used many techniques including: the ballanco (hanging by
the wrists which are tied behind the back); electric shocks; having his
toe nails crushed; having his hair pulled out; repeatedly being deprived
of food and sleep over a period of more than 40 days; being forced to
drink dirty water; and hearing threats to kill members of his family. As a
result of torture, he said he was unable to stand for about one month,
bled from parts of his body including his mouth, suffered hallucinations
and forgot his name. He said he was being beaten in the presence of judges
and the Public Prosecutor. He was told that he had to choose one of two
options: to confess that he had himself bombed the church or that he had
participated in the bombing. He told the court that finally he signed
papers presented to him because he could no longer stand the effects of
torture which were compounded by pain from a back operation he had had in
1987.
Amnesty International has received many reports of torture committed at
the MDDC. Fawzi al-Rasi, who was among those held in connection with the
church bombing in 1994, died in custody apparently as a result of torture
there. He died after being admitted to an intensive care unit on 22 April
1994. At the time of the arrest and subsequent incommunicado detention of
Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri, the MDDC was an unlawful place of
detention operating contrary to Lebanese law and international standards.
It continues to operate outside the state’s ordinary prison system despite
its legalization as a place of detention in January 1995.
The MDDC is one of about eight “private” detention centres in the country
which were authorized by the government during the first half of the 1990s
through a decree issued by the Council of Ministers. They are under the
jurisdiction of the Minister of Defence and are apparently run by the
military intelligence and other security services. A maximum security
prison, the MDDC has been used over the years as a transit detention
centre where detainees are held for weeks or months, before being
transferred, mainly to ordinary prisons. In certain cases political
detainees may be brought back to the MDDC where they may be abused again.
The MDDC continues to be out of bounds of the International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC) and apparently of prison inspection systems operated
by the Ministry of Interior.
The reputation of the MDDC was such that when a detainee was told in 2000
that he was being transferred there he was overwhelmed with “fear and was
praying to God to be dead before [his] arrival so they could not touch [him]”[2].
Another former detainee and member of the LF held for years without trial
at the MDDC told Amnesty International in 2002:
“There was torture by electric shocks and the Ballanco and extraction of
‘confessions’ under duress. Cells were without windows or sun light. It
was like a grave: you are confined to one place for long periods and
subjected to ill-treatment, not allowed to have access to the toilet
except one time during day time (during the night detainees are provided
with containers to use instead) when the detainee will be blindfolded and
handcuffed. At times the eleven cells in the detention centre would be
full to the extent that people would be left handcuffed and blindfolded in
the corridors. As a result of long solitary confinement underground
detainees suffered physically and psychologically. They were physically
weak suffering from pain in their joints.”
Some of the torture methods documented in recent years by Amnesty
International from testimonies given by former detainees at the MDDC
include:
· Incommunicado detention in underground cells of about three by two
metres without access to fresh air or natural light;
· Being stripped naked;
· Blindfolding, hand-cuffing and tying of hands behind the back;
· Prolonged interrogation for hours, mostly during the night;
· Beating on different parts of the body;
· Crushing of toes;
· Pulling out of hair;
· Exposure to screams of other detainees being tortured;
· Being threatened that female relatives would be attacked and raped;
· Being forced to remain for prolonged periods in fixed positions;
· Being subjected to electric shocks;
· The ballanco (hanging by the wrists which are tied behind the back);
· Having one’s religious beliefs denigrated;
· Being prevented from praying or having access to priests;
· Prolonged suspension in contorted positions while being beaten with
sticks and cables on the feet;
· Deprivation of sleep, food and drink for prolonged periods;
· Denial of access to the toilet except once during the day, and being
forced to use containers during the night.
Trials before the Justice Council
On 13 June 1994, 22 people including Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri,
were charged in connection with the church bombing but charges against
most of them were later dropped by the examining magistrate. The charges
brought against both defendants in accordance with the provisions of the
Penal Code and [Terrorism] Law 11/1/1958 included the offences of
“carrying out acts intended to change the Constitution by illegal means”,
“killings” and aiming to abolish the “legitimate role represented by the
army”. Eight of the 22, including Samir Gea=gea= and Jirjis al-Khouri,
were referred to trial (five of them in absentia) before the Justice
Council. In July 1996 the court acquitted Samir Gea‘gea’ of the church
bombing charge, but sentenced him to ten years imprisonment for
Amaintaining a militia in the guise of a political party,” and for
“dealing with military weapons and explosives@; Jirjis al-Khouri was
sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour.
Between 1995 and 1999 Samir Gea’gea’ was handed down multiple death
sentences commuted to life imprisonment by the Justice Council for the
October 1990 killing of Dany Cham’oun and his family, the assassinations
during the civil war of former Prime Minister Rashid Karami in 1987, and
the attempted assassination of former Lebanese Minister Michel al-Murr in
1991. A Criminal Court also sentenced him to life imprisonment for the
assassination of former LF cadre Elias al-Zayek in 1990.
The Justice Council is a special court to which cases are referred at the
discretion of the Council of Ministers, on the advice of the Minster of
Justice, and not as a result of normal judicial procedures. The Justice
Council has jurisdiction over cases involving, among other things,
assassinations of, or assassination attempts on senior politicians,
diplomats and religious personalities and cases of political violence and
“terrorism”. There is no right of judicial review of the sentences passed
by the Justice Council, including death penalty sentences. Amnesty
International has expressed concerns about the Justice Council’s
procedures which are incompatible with fair trial standards as laid down
by Article 14 of the the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR). The UN Human Rights Committee, the body which moniters
implemention by states of the ICCPR, has pointed out that “decisions
passed by the Justice Council are not subject to appeal ... contrary to
article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.”[3] Amnesty International is
also concerned that defendants tried before this court are routinely held
in prolonged pre-trial detention, sometimes for years.
Amnesty International considers trials before the Justice Council to be in
violation of international standards for fair trial because its decisions
are final and not subject to appeal. The way cases referred to this court
are chosen is selective, and the manner in which they are prosecuted may
be based on political considerations rather than legal merit. Article 26
of the ICCPR states “[a]ll persons are equal before the law and are
entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In
this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to
all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any
ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Principle 5 emphasizes the right to be tried before an ordinary court:
“[everyone] shall have the right to be tried by ordinary courts or
tribunals using established legal procedures. Tribunals that do not use
the duly established procedures of the legal process shall not be created
to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial
tribunals.”
Most of the defendants sentenced by this court over the last ten years
were affiliated to political groups opposed to the government. Their
trials were seriously prejudiced as a result of politically motivated
smear campaigns following their arrest. In the two cases discussed in this
report and subsequent cases brought before this court, Amnesty
International noticed a persistent violation of the right to presumption
of innocence.
One of the main flaws of the Justice Council is that it does not have
total jurisdiction over the legal process of the cases brought before it,
especially jurisdiction over all pre-trial procedures. This is contrary to
Principle 3 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the
Judiciary which states ''[t]he judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all
issues of a judicial nature and shall have exclusive authority to decide
whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as
defined by law.''
As far as Amnesty International is aware, the Justice Council has failed
to investigate numerous allegations made by defendants of torture and
ill-treatment during pre-trial detention. In the case of Jirjis al-Khouri,
the Justice Council has failed to investigate serious allegations of
torture and extraction of “confessions” under torture and ill-treatment
despite Jirjis al-Khouri’s accusation that the then Public Prosecutor was
present while he was being beaten during interrogation in incommunicado
detention.
Prolonged solitary confinement at the MDDC
Over ten years after their arrests, Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri
remained held in solitary confinement in individual underground cells at
the MDDC. They are not allowed to communicate with other detainees even
when they are outside their cells, and are denied access to newspapers,
radio, TV and any literature of a political nature. Both detainees,
however, receive visits from members of their families on specified days
of the week. The visits are restricted and are subject to prior approval
by the Public Prosecutor, and are conducted from behind glass barriers in
the presence of military intelligence officers.
Cut off from the outside world the two political prisoners have apparently
suffered physically and mentally. Samir Gea’gea’ was examined by a team of
medical doctors, who made their findings public in a press conference held
at the Medical Syndicate in Beirut on 16 September 2004. The examination
revealed that Samir Gea’gea’ suffers from osteomalacia, a disease of the
bones uncommon among those who are in their early fifties as is the case
with Samir Gea’gea’, and which could lead to spontaneous fracturing of the
bones. Despite additional medical examination the cause of this disease
was unclear, leading the panel of doctors to believe that it may be due to
a lack of exposure over the years to regular and adequate sunlight. The
report also revealed that he suffers from tachycardia or an irregular
heart beat which may be the result of “physically and mentally stressful
conditions”. The panel stressed the necessity of providing him with proper
medical care in accordance with international standards, and concluded
that the general health of Samir Gea’gea’ appears to be fine, but there
are signs of ill-health in view of the heart and bone conditions. In
previous years he had suffered from paralysis of one of his fingers and
chronic pain in his right shoulder. Ten days after the release of the
medical report on Samir Gea’gea’, the authorities announced that he had
been moved to a new cell with reportedly better conditions.
The precise health condition of Jirjis al-Khouri is not known given that
he has not been allowed access to independent medical care, but he is
reportedly suffering from pains in his spine, neck, leg and stomach. He
reportedly sleeps on a mattress on the floor. According to information
obtained by Amnesty International, his family’s request to allow him
access to an independent medical examination has been refused by the
authorities. He is allowed access to his family every Tuesday and Thursday
excluding public holidays, but his family’s requests for him to be allowed
access to priests, medical care and homemade food have been denied.
Amnesty International considers prolonged solitary confinement to be cruel
and damaging to the physical and mental health of a prisoner. This is
particularly so in the case of Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri who
have been held for over ten years in solitary and isolated cells in a
place which is not a prison institution, not subject to ordinary prison
rules, and not accessible to visits by the ICRC or other inspectors.
Article 7 of the UN Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners states:
"Efforts addressed to the abolition of solitary confinement as a
punishment, or to the restriction of its use, should be undertaken and
encouraged." The Human Rights Committee has stated that "prolonged
solitary confinement... may amount to acts prohibited by article 7” of the
ICCPR which states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.".[4]
Lebanon’s obligations under human rights law
In these two cases the safeguards that must be accorded to pre-trial
detainees have been absent, leading to allegations of torture and
intimidation to extract “confessions”. One of these safeguards is the
right of the detainee to be brought without delay before a judicial or
other competent authority. According to Article 9(3) of the ICCPR, to
which Lebanon has been a state party since 1976, "[a]nyone arrested or
detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or
other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be
entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release." Principle 37 of
the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form
of Detention or Imprisonment states,
"A person detained on a criminal charge shall be brought before a judicial
or other authority provided by law promptly after his arrest. Such
authority shall decide without delay upon the lawfulness and necessity of
detention. No person may be kept under detention pending investigation or
trial except upon the written order of such an authority. A detained
person shall, when brought before such an authority, have the right to
make a statement on the treatment received by him while in custody."
The Lebanese authorities are also obliged to investigate allegations of
torture. In the case of Jirjis al-Khouri the authorities refused to
conduct an independent investigation into claims of torture, and
considered a medical report they commissioned to be conclusive proof that
he had not been tortured. The Special Rapporteur on torture has stated
that "the absence of marks on the body that would be consistent with
allegation[s] of torture should not necessarily be treated by prosecutors
and judges as proof that such allegations are false" and has called for
"the judiciary to be made more aware of other forms of torture, such as
intimidation and other threats”.[5] The UN Commission on Human Rights has
stated that "intimidation and coercion, as described in article 1 of the
Convention [against Torture]…, including serious and credible threats, as
well as death threats, to the physical integrity of the victim or of a
third person, can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or to
torture".[6] Amnesty International is concerned that despite categorical
retraction by Jirjis al-Khouri of the statements he made while held
incommunicado at the MDDC, asserting that they were made under torture,
the Justice Council accepted them and considered them as the main evidence
against him and other defendants. This contravenes Article 15 of the UN
Convention against Torture which provides that states parties must “ensure
that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of
torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except
against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was
made”.[7]
The Special Rapporteur on torture has stated "[n]o statement or confession
made by a person deprived of liberty, other than one made in [the]
presence of a judge or a lawyer, should have a probative value in court,
except as evidence against those who are accused of having obtained the
confession by unlawful means."[8] The Special Rapporteur on torture has
recommended, "[p]rosecutors and judges should not require conclusive proof
of physical torture or ill-treatment (much less final conviction of an
accused perpetrator) before deciding not to rely as against the detainee
on confessions or information alleged to have been obtained by such
treatment; indeed, the burden of proof should be on the State to
demonstrate the absence of coercion."[9] Article 15 of the Convention
against Torture states, "[e]ach State Party shall ensure that any
statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture
shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a
person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made." The
Committee against Torture has recommended that "all evidence obtained
directly or indirectly by torture be strictly prevented from reaching the
cognizance of the deciding judges in all judicial proceedings".[10]
At the MDDC and other “private” prisons operated by the military
intelligence and other security forces, political detainees, arrested
usually without warrant, are routinely held incommunicado for months
without the knowledge of their relatives or lawyers. This practice, which
has continued for years now, apart from being in itself a human rights
violation, facilitates other human rights violations against detainees
including torture and ill-treatment leading to physical and mental
ill-health and even death in custody. These are violations of Lebanese law
as well as of international human rights standards and treaties to which
Lebanon is a state party, including the UN Convention against Torture.
Article 10 of the UN Declaration on Enforced Disappearance states, "[a]ny
person deprived of liberty shall be held in an officially recognized place
of detention".[11] The Human Rights Committee states that detainees should
be held “in places officially recognized as places of detention".
Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur on torture has stated, "the
maintenance of secret places of detention should be abolished under law.
It should be a punishable offence for any official to hold a person in a
secret and/or unofficial place of detention. Any evidence obtained from a
detainee in an unofficial place of detention and not confirmed by the
detainee during interrogation at official locations should not be admitted
as evidence in court."[12]
Despite calls, including from members of parliament, for the improvement
of conditions in “private” detention centres and for them to be brought in
line with Lebanese prison regulations and international standards,
violations against detainees at the MDDC continue to be widely reported
and appear not to be investigated. The lack of ICRC access to the MDDC
runs counter to Decree No. 8800 issued by President Emile Lahoud on 4
October 2002. The Decree states “Delegates of the ICRC shall be allowed to
visit the prisoners they choose, to talk to them without restriction or
surveillance for the whole duration of the visit, and in a place that they
choose inside the prison. They shall be allowed to record the identity of
the prisoners they meet.” The Decree authorizes medical delegates of the
ICRC to meet all the prisoners they choose and to interview them without
surveillance. However, despite this Decree the ICRC continues to be denied
access to the MDDC, apparently due to the refusal of the military
intelligence to comply with the Decree.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Amnesty International considers the trial of Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis
al-Khouri to be in violation of international standards of fair trial, and
their conditions of detention to be cruel, inhuman and degrading. The
organization is equally concerned at reports of torture and ill-treatment
inflicted on Jirjis al-Khouri and scores of other detainees who have been
held at the MDDC. The organization regrets that the Lebanese authorities
have failed so far to address its repeated calls for these two prisoners
to be given a fair trial, and for all allegations of torture and
ill-treatment and extraction of “confessions” under torture and
ill-treatment at the MDDC during incommunicado detention, to be
investigated independently. The organization believes that any statement
made involuntarily or extracted under torture or ill-treatment should be
excluded as evidence in judicial or other proceedings except where it is
evidence against a person accused of perpetrating torture. Amnesty
International calls on the Lebanese authorities to implement without delay
the following recommendations:
Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri should be released, or promptly
retried before an ordinary and independent criminal court, that applies
regular provisions of the criminal law, in proceedings which must adhere
to international standards for fair trial, including the right of the
defendants to:
- have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence
and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing, in private and
without any hindrance;
- be tried without undue delay;
- examine, or have examined, the witnesses against them and to obtain the
attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under the same
conditions as witnesses against them;
- not be compelled to testify against themselves or to “confess” guilt;
- have any statements obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment made inadmissible in any proceedings
before the court;
- appeal and review the court ruling before a higher court, which is
similarly independent of government;
· Conduct an independent, thorough, and impartial investigation into their
trials and allegations of torture and ill-treatment, and their prolonged
solitary confinement in cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions;
· Reform the justice system, including by abolishing the single-tier
courts and the death penalty. Ensure that all detainees are tried before a
competent and impartial court established by law without any interference
of a political or any other nature and with the judges having exclusive
power to decide on matters of a judicial nature;
· Implement all relevant international treaties and standards including
the ICCPR, the UN Convention against Torture, the UN Body of Principles
for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment, and the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners;
· Enforce Presidential Decree No. 8800 and ensure that the ICRC is allowed
immediate and unfettered access to all Lebanese prisons including those
run by the MDDC and all other “private” detention centres. The MDDC and
all other prisons must be subject to independent inspection through bodies
that are independent of the authorities running the prisons;
· Improve detention conditions in the MDDC including by ensuring that they
are brought in line with international standards. The MDDC and all other
“private” prisons must be subject to normal prison regulations governing
the prison system in Lebanon and in line with recognized international
standards for the treatment of detainees;
· In particular take immediate steps to ensure that the detainees are
well-treated and not subjected to any form of torture and cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment. The authorities must stop holding detainees
incommunicado, confining detainees in dark cells or subjecting them to any
other unlawful treatment or punishment prejudicial to their mental and
physical health.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Among the cases involving killings of political and religious
personalities, some of which were referred to the Justice Council, were
those of Presidents Bashir Gemayel and Rene Ma’awwad; Kamal Jumblat the
leader the Progressive Socialist Party; Mufti Hasan Khaled; and journalist
and publisher Salim al-Luzi.
[2] See Lebanon: Torture and unfair trial of the Dhinniyyah detainees,
Amnesty International, AI Index: MDE 18/005/2003, May 2003, page 12.
[3] Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Lebanon, UN
Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.78 (1997), para. 9.
[4] CCPR General Comment No. 20. (General Comments), Replaces general
comment 7 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or
punishment (Article 7), 10 March 1992, para. 6.
[5] UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/38/Add.2, Report on Visit to Mexico, 14 January
1998, para. 88(i).
[6] Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/32, 23 April 2003, para. 6.
[7] While Lebanon was not a state party to this convention at the time,
this principle is enshrined in the Declaration Against Torture and other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the UN
General Assembly in 1975, Article 12.
[8] UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/76, 27 December 2001, Annex 1.
[9] UN. Doc. E/CN.4/1999/61/Add.1 Report on visit to Turkey (1998), para.
113(e).
[10] UN Doc. A/53/44 (1998), Concluding observations on Germany, para.193.
[11] General Comment on Article 7, ibid., para. 11.
[12] UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/76, 27 December 2001, Annex 1.
|
