Rights of the defence undermined in Nabeel Rajab's trial

BAHRAIN: Rights of thedefence undermined in Nabeel Rajab's trial

Paris-Geneva, October 18, 2012. TheObservatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme ofthe International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World OrganisationAgainst Torture (OMCT), deplores the violation of the rights of the defenceduring the third hearing of the appeal against the three years’ imprisonmentsentence pronounced against Nabeel Rajab, who has been arbitrarily detainedsince July 9, 2012.

On October 16, 2012, the BahrainAppeals Court resumed the hearing on the appeal against the three years’imprisonment sentence pronounced against Mr. Nabeel Rajab, President of theBahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR), Director of the Gulf Centre for HumanRights (GCHR) and FIDH Deputy Secretary General[1],on August 16, 2012 by the Lower Criminal Court for three cases related to hisparticipation in peaceful gatherings in favour of fundamental freedoms anddemocracy. The hearing was attended by Mr. Antoine Aussedat, French lawyer, whohad been mandated by the Observatory to conduct an international trialobservation mission. He was the only trial observer mandated by aninternational NGO. Several diplomats representing France, Germany, the UnitedKingdom and the USA also attended the hearing.

The Observatory deplores that atleast one international defence witness was denied entry to Bahrain. Indeed,FIDH's Representative, Stéphanie David, Head of MENA Desk, who had been calledupon to testify as a witness by the defence team, was denied entry into Bahrainon October 16, 2012. The Observatory considers that preventing internationalexperts from testifying before a court amounts to a blatant violation of therights of the defence. Nabeel Rajab's lawyers had formally requested the Courtto issue a letter to the Customs to facilitate the entry of severalinternational witnesses, including Ms. David, but the court refused to issuesuch a letter. Despite the Court's lack of support, FIDH, together with thedefence lawyers, decided to confirm Ms. David's travel to Bahrain for thepurpose of the trial. During the hearing, the defence lawyers' request to callinternational witnesses was rejected by the Court on the ground that theirtestimonies were not “relevant”.

In addition, the Observatory regretsthat part of the evidence have not been examined in public and that the defencelawyers have not had access to all the evidence filed in the criminal case indue time. Indeed, the defence lawyers asked the Court that a video that hadbeen used as evidence to convict Mr. Rajab be shown during the appeal hearing,as the said video had not been shown during the first instance[2].The Appeals Court informed the defence team that the video could not be shownas it had disappeared from the criminal file. In addition, the Court attemptedto show a second video submitted by the Prosecutor, but which had not beenadded as part of the criminal case file. After a brief attempt, the Courtsuspended the hearing for more than two hours to solve technical issues. Whenthe hearing resumed, the court announced that the trial was again adjourned toNovember 8, 2012. The Observatory calls on the judicial authorities to ensurethat Nabeel Rajab's lawyers have access to all the evidence filed in thecriminal case in due time.

The Observatory deplores theabove-mentioned incidents, which blatantly violate the rights of the defence,including the principle of the equality of arms, and reiterates its call to theBahraini authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Mr. Rajab andto put an end to all acts of judicial harassment against him, as his prolongeddetention seems to merely aim at sanctioning legitimate human rights activities protectedunder international human rights law.

For more information, please contact:

· FIDH: Arthur Manet/Audrey Couprie: +33 (0) 1 43 55 25 18

· OMCT: Delphine Reculeau: +41 (0) 22809 49 39

[1] Mr. Rajab is also a member of the AdvisoryCommittee of Human Rights Watch's Middle East Division and Chair of CARAM Asia.

[2] The Court in first instance insistedthat the said video be only shown in camera, which was refused by the defencelawyers who insisted on showing it in the court room in public.