05/09/2002 | EGYPT: THE CASE OF SAAD EDDIN IBRAHIM SPEECH BY CHRIS PATTEN, MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, EXTERNAL RELATIONS

Patten, Commission. - Mr President, the trial of Dr Saad Eddin Ibrahim and his colleagues has aroused widespread international interest and concern, not least among those who, like many of us here, consider ourselves true friends of Egypt and the Egyptian people. When Dr Ibrahim and his co-accused successfully appealed for a retrial last February, we hoped that the best traditions of justice would prevail, not only on the merits of the case, but because of the evident damage to Egypt's international reputation caused by the handling of the case by the Egyptian authorities. We were therefore profoundly shocked on 29 July when Dr Ibrahim was again sentenced to seven years' imprisonment with hard labour, a cruel sentence for a man in his frail physical condition. A further four defendants were also sentenced to prison and the remaining 24 have suspended sentences. Even if the charges were credible, and we do not find them so, these sentences are completely disproportionate. The following day I personally voiced my dismay and repeated that, despite careful monitoring and a mid-term external audit, the Commission has no evidence of financial or other wrongdoings by Dr Ibrahim or his co-defendants with respect to the two NGO contracts managed by them. We made this clear in an affidavit submitted during the appeal. Furthermore, I repeated then and I repeat now that we deplore the use of state security courts and procedures to pursue cases of this nature. Even the Court of Appeal has misgivings on the use of Military Court Order No 4 under which this prosecution was brought. We were disturbed by the decision to retry the defendants after a successful appeal and despite Dr Ibrahim's failing health. We are troubled by the conduct of the trial and the speed and manner of the court's decision. This unseemly rush to judgment did nothing to improve the court's credibility. The case has been closely followed by the EC and Member States and we made our concern clear at the highest levels from the beginni ng. With respect to the charge of accepting foreign European Union funds without authorisation, the Commission insists that direct grants to civil society are perfectly proper and are covered by the EU-Egypt Framework Convention on Financial and Technical Cooperation. At the conclusion of the first trial last year, the severe sentences led to an EC statement on 23 May and the presidency declaration two days later, expressing deep concern.. Then, as now, the European Union stressed the importance it attaches to the development of civil society and reiterated that actions to this end are an integral part of Barcelona and bilateral programming which Egypt has signed up to. With respect to the claimed misuse of EU funds, the Commission is, to say the least, surprised that the Court has reportedly ruled as irrelevant the views of the Commission, the alleged victim, that its normal monitoring procedures, including an external mid-term audit, gave no cause for concern whatsoever, financial or otherwise. We have no access at present to the NGO files, which have been confiscated by the authorities. The European Union has always hoped that due legal process and justice would prevail. We have scrupulously avoided any intervention that might prejudice that expectation. The Commission's affidavit during the appeal was strictly factual and correct. We are concerned that the Court, in its written explanations, is reported to have implied the contrary. The Commission and the Member States continue to follow the case closely. The Cairo-based Troika has already visited Dr Ibrahim in prison and the Swedes visited again this weekend. We are in close touch with the family. If, as first press reports indicate, the Court's formal explanation of its verdict, which still has to be translated, misrepresents the European Union's position, we will not hesitate to rectify it. The legal process is not finished and I understand that the defendants will appeal. The Egyptian authorities are well aware of the wider implications of a judgment that is perceived as unjust and politically influenced. Only the due process of law in full transparency can prevent further damage to Egypt's international standing. The Ibrahim case raises issues of real concern, but the overall human rights situation in Egypt is complex and not entirely clear. There is some cause for optimism, for example, in relation to women's rights, judicial control of general elections and social legislation. But there are also some signs which give cause for concern, such as the new law on non- governmental organisations, the alleged harassment of homosexuals referred to earlier and the further arrests of members of the Islamic opposition. What we have to do is discern the trend and react accordingly. The Ibrahim case casts a long, but hopefully temporary, shadow over the Egyptian human rights and democracy movement. Although the international outcry at the verdict has provoked a strong reaction in Cairo, many influential Egyptians accept that Egypt must adopt the highest judicial and democratic standards if it is to achieve its developmental and political ambitions. We can only agree with that. We will continue to use appropriate measures to express our concern on individual cases. We shall discuss the broader issues concerning human rights and the promotion of democracy within the context of our cooperation programming and the enhanced political dialogue that must characterise the new and privileged relationship between the European Union and its Mediterranean partners. I confirm directly to the Member who raised this question that I shall certainly be discussing the matter when, God willing, I visit Egypt myself next month.