THE CRIMINAL COURT HAS ALSO LISTENED TO THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE

Dr. Ahmed Kamal Abu Almagd.
Said Elwani Alnaggar.
Abdelmeneim Saeed Ali. Mohamed Ibrahim Shaker. Munir Fahkri Abdelnour.
Ali Mohamed Ali Salem.
Mohamed Mahmoud Algohari.
Ahmed Mahmoud Abdelhalim.
Hossam Hassan Badrawi.

Among the people listed above are a university professor, a former ambassador, a member of parliament, former generals, and esteemed writers. Some of them are also trustees of the Ibn Khaldun Center.

The first testified that the defendant "is a social researcher of unique character. He is interested in studying public issues and does not write for foreign bodies. If he believes in something he does it. He is known for his patriotism. His writings did not go beyond the published issues in the newspapers. The purpose of the studies he conducts and the criticism he launches is to reform society. The report he wrote on the elections records positive and negative aspects". The witness also said that he went with the defendant to the United States upon invitation by a center for studies there and all of them reflected the same views.

The second witness testified that the defendant is a well-known name in the Arab and international community in the field of sociology. No one matches him in his activity and ability to express himself in conferences. It is untrue that the defendant tarnishes Egypt's image. It is those who put the defendant behind the bar that tarnish Egypt's reputation. As the defendant lives in the age Internet, fax, and communications, there is no restriction on information transfer abroad.

As regards the 1995 elections, a committee of composed of members of associations concerned with democracy, including the Ibn Khaldun Center, was formed to monitor these elections. The purpose of the committee was not to cause harm to Egypt's reputation or to distort its image.

As regards the issue of minorities, the People's Assembly previously formed a committee in 1972 which made reports and recommendations. The purpose of these reports and recommendations was to make good relationships prevail among the elements of the nation. The defendant based his opinions on the committee's research.

The third witness testified the he [Abdel Moneim Saidis the director of the Al Ahram Center for Political Studies. He issued a book on elections in Egypt and associated mistakes. The constitutional court addressed some of these mistakes. The defendant's study on this issue was aimed to see whether the elections were run in accordance wi th the law.
The question of minorities is generally raised in sociology and politics in Egypt. The defendant, a very famous sociologist in the world, has books on this subject. The information he published merely reflects his opinion. His statements about forgery and persecution do not constitute accusation of the state.!

The fourth witness testified that he [Amb. Mohamed Shaker] is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Ibn Khaldun Center. The defendant provides great services to the Egyptian community. He conducts studies on the role of women in society and the rehabilitation of extremists. He discusses the issue of education. The symposiums that were held in the center were attended by state officials. The defendant's opinions on the election and on minorities issues were motivated by the fact that he is an ~Egyptian. He does not cause harm to Egypt's reputation inside or outside the country. On the contrary, the defendant was a credit to Egypt in the conferences in which he participated abroad.

The fifth witness testified that the defendant is "an intellectual with opinions on how to activate the civil society and increase the citizen's political participation. His articles come within the context of criticism and under the climate of democracy for which the state calls. The allegations about monitoring the 1995 elections, about the research projects issued by Ibn Khaldun Center with respect to the Coptic issue, and about sending these reports abroad by fax do not cause harm to Egypt's image. In fact, these projects are a response to the call by the parliamentary committee of the People's Assembly to enhance national unity".

The sixth witness testified that he is the writer of the scenario of the film entitled 'Come and Participate' and is responsible for what he has written. "The film cannot be considered an artistic work, as it has not come into existence yet. Depicting an election committee under a banner reading Committee of deep sleep, with a policeman and observer sleeping, is an intended joke. It means that as everyone sleeps, elections are rigged. It shows that boycotting the elections is negative behavior. The film urges the citizens to cast their votes. It contains no sensation;:!.l publicity nor false rumors. The witness said that he shared with the defendant all the defendant's beliefs, particularly his opinion that development will be achieved only by supporting political and economic freedoms.

The seventh witness testified that the works the defendant wrote or published were mere scientific studies and research projects in sociology. The defendantis methods do not cause agitation and are not contrary to the law. The activities practiced by the Ibn Khaldun Center are not different from the activities of other similar centers.

The eighth witness, a member of the Ibn Khaldun Center's Board of Trustees, testified that the defendant is a great sociologist, and that the research projects conducted by the Ibn Khaldun Center are taught in other centers and do not cause any harm to national security. He said that he participated in 1999 with the defendant and others, including the Egyptian Foreign Minister, in conference at the National Institute for Strategic Studies in the United States.

The ninth witness testified that the election issue, which the defendant has addressed, had been previously dealt with by many newspapers and information centers. The report issued by the center recorded both negative and positive aspects. The defendantis research on minorities was aimed at investigating the roots of the problems between Moslems and Copts and did not cause any harm to Egyptis reputation.

In view of all the foregoing, the Court has made sure that Saad Eddin Mohamed Ibrahim, a scientist in his field of specialty, has not given up his affiliation to his first country, Egypt. According to Article (47) of the constitution, freedom of opinion is ensured. Every person has the right to express and publish his opinion by word, writing, depiction, or any other means of expression within the limits of law.

Out of his belief that self-criticism and constructive criticism, as described in the constitution, is an assurance of the safety of the nation, the defendant employed his science in studying the problems of Egyptian civil society as it democratizes. After he mentioned and listed these problems, as published and established without forgery or counterfeiting, he analyzed and found solutions for them. He was motivated by a desire to eliminate these problems. To this end, he availed himself of the contributions and contracts permitted by the international agreements to which Egypt is party.

The information contained in his reports or research projects on rigging the elections and on the concerns of minorities are simply are reflection of the published material in books or newspapers. With the communication revolution, it is not possible to prevent this sort of information being accessible to any person abroad who seeks to know it. Therefore, sending information or research by the defendant, whether originally prepared by him or by any other person, to a certain body abroad on the occasion of proposing a development project, with the purpose of achieving the project's objectives, does not mean spreading false statements or disseminating malignant rumors abroad.

Thus, the requirements of the crime provided under Article (SO-d) are not fulfilled with the result that the defendant should be acquitted of this crime like the previous crime pursuant to Article (304) of the Penal Procedure Code. With this finding, there is no need to discuss the plea to an exception of unconstitutionality.

Needless to say, the concerns of the Copts are still discussed in some Egyptian newspapers. In October magazine, issue No. 1365 on22 December 2002, under the title "Problems of Copts in Egypt on their way to solution" an interview was conducted with Dr. Nabil Luqa Bebawi. In this interview, Dr. Bebawi talked about discrimination against Copts in Egypt by the Christian Romans. During the Ottoman rule, the Christians were no treated on equal footing with the Moslems. The regime imposed certain restrictions on them. These regulated walking on the streets, wearing certain types of clothes, riding horses, and carrying weapons. All this is history now, and Copts at present call to broadcast their Sunday service from a church the same way Moslems do for Friday prayers.

The Copts demand that they be represented in leadership, political, administrative, executive, and judicial posts in proportion to their number in the population. The Copts also demand that the procedures for returning their Waqfs (or endowments) be completed and that the education syllabi not ignore their history. They also call for purifying the religious Islamic and Christian discourse from fanaticism. All this, in fact, is no more than what Saad Eddin Ibrahim has called for...
Wherefore:

THE COURT ORDERS, in the presence of the defendants,
That the defendants Saad Eddin Mohamed Ibrahim, Nadia Mohamed Ahmed Abdel Nour, and Mohamed Hassaneen Hassaneen Emara be acquitted of the charges brought against them.