The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the outline of the case concerning Mr. Matar Ebrahim Matar and Mr. Jawad Fairooz Ghuloom, and to the resolution adopted at its 191st session (October 2012),

Having considered the letters from the Speaker of the Council of Representatives dated 25 September 2013, 18 March and 9 January 2013 and the extensive information provided by the Bahraini delegation, led by Mr. Jamal Fakhro, First Deputy Speaker of the Shura Council, at hearings held in January 2013 and during the 128th IPU Assembly (Quito, March 2013) and the 129th IPU Assembly (Geneva, October 2013),

Recalling that Mr. Matar and Mr. Fairooz, who both belong to the Al-Wefaq party, were elected in 2010 and supported the call for political and social reform in Bahrain, that they and the other 16 Al‑Wefaq parliamentarians tendered their resignations on 27 February 2011 in protest at the government’s response to the demonstrations that started in the capital on 14 February 2011, and that their resignations were accepted by the Council of Representatives on 29 March 2011,

Noting with deep concern the outline of events provided by the source, to wit: that both men were arbitrarily arrested on 2 May 2011 by security forces and taken to different detention centres, where they were ill-treated and denied access to family and legal counsel; that Mr. Fairooz was allowed only a five-minute telephone call to his family on 29 May 2011, but forbidden to divulge his location; that their families only found out what had happened to them when trial proceedings started against them on 12 June 2011 before the National Safety Court, which was also the first time that they had access to a lawyer; that the accused were informed at the court hearing that they were being charged with spreading false information, instigating hatred against the authorities, organizing and participating in gatherings without having properly notified the authorities in advance, and using the gatherings to prepare or facilitate crimes, or to undermine public security; that both men denied the charges, and were released from detention on 7 August 2011; that Mr. Matar was acquitted on 20 February 2012, while Mr. Fairooz was tried on the last two counts; that on 7 November 2012 Mr. Fairooz was sentenced to a 15-month prison sentence, with payment of a fine of 300 Bahraini dinars as an alternative; that Mr. Fairooz appealed the sentence, and that the High Court on 15 January 2013 confirmed the sentence in accelerated procedure,

Aware that the Speaker of the Council of Representatives in his letter of 18 March 2013 disputes the arbitrary nature of the arrests, and asserts that Mr. Matar and Mr. Fairooz were receiving regular family visits, which were documented in the official records of the detention centre,

Recalling further that the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, an independent body set up by the King of Bahrain to investigate alleged human rights abuses during and following the 2011 protests in the country, presented its official report on 23 November 2011 with the following findings:

• The text and application of Articles 165, 168, 169, 179 and 180 of the Bahrain Penal Code "raises questions about their conformity with international human rights law and the Constitution of Bahrain"; the Government of Bahrain "used these articles to punish those in the opposition and to deter political opposition";

• "[In] a substantial number of the arrests carried out by law enforcement agencies arrest warrants were not presented to arrested individuals and arrested individuals were not informed of the reasons for their arrest";

• "In many cases, government security forces resorted to the use of unnecessary and excessive force, and in a manner that sought to terrorise individuals"; "many detainees were subjected to torture and other forms of physical and psychological abuse while in custody, which indicated patterns of behaviour by certain government agencies"; "[the] extent of this physical and psychological mistreatment is evidence of a deliberate practice"; the techniques used to mistreat detainees "fall within the meaning of torture as defined in the Convention Against Torture… to which Bahrain is a State Party"; "the lack of accountability of officials within the security system in Bahrain has led to a culture of impunity, whereby security officials have few incentives to avoid mistreatment of prisoners or to take action to prevent mistreatment by other officials",

Noting theindications provided by the Speaker in his 18 March 2013 letter, according to which: the complaints were acted on by a military prosecutor, given that the alleged perpetrators were associated with the defence force; on 23 October 2011 the prosecution heard Mr. Fairooz and observed that he was unable to recognize any of the alleged perpetrators; Mr. Fairooz’s wife, whom he had cited as a witness, testified under oath that her husband had been arrested in a respectful manner, although she did not know on what authority the arrest had been carried out; the military prosecutor likewise heard Mr. Matar on the same day; testifying at his request, Mr. Matar’s wife stated under oath that her husband had been arrested by a group of civilians, but that he had escaped briefly, before being caught and arrested again; she testified that she had received a telephone call from him, and when asked by the military prosecutor whether she had seen anyone beating her husband or insulting him, she said that she had not; with respect to both Mr. Fairooz and Mr. Matar, the military prosecutor questioned the security personnel individually, and all of them denied all involvement in ill-treatment,

Noting also the further statements by the Speaker of the Council of Representatives in the same 18 March 2013 letter, according to which: the military prosecution decided not to take legal action on the allegations because of the conclusive evidence that the alleged violations had not in fact taken place, including the statements of the wives of the former parliamentarians and the dearth of evidence in support of the accusations, the complainants having failed to present any evidence whatsoever in support of their claims; neither Mr. Fairooz nor Mr. Matar had appealed the decision by the military prosecutor to close the investigation; the possibility of re-opening the investigation remained, if new evidence were to come to light, in accordance with Article 163 of the Criminal Procedure Law,

Bearing in mind in this connection Mr. Fairooz’s declaration that he was never officially informed of the military prosecutor’s decision to close the investigation, nor did he receive any information about its results,

Considering that the evidence cited in the judgment against Mr. Fairooz seems to consist essentially of his own admission that he had been involved in organizing peaceful protests and had spoken at rallies (recorded speeches) and given interviews to representatives of the international media, the United Nations and the European Parliament, along with the fact that some other participants at the gatherings had advocated the overthrow of the current regime and committed violent acts; although Mr. Fairooz himself addressed those gathered at the Pearl Roundabout on two occasions, he was neither violent nor advocated the use of violence or the overthrow of the regime; although at one point, he took the stage to address the gathering against the backdrop of a poster advocating the overthrow of the regime, for which he was criticized by the military prosecutor during the interrogation, the suggestion being that Mr. Fairooz should have refused to speak unless the poster was taken down,

Bearing in mind also that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, and the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, have made it clear that organizers should not be criminalized for not requesting an authorization and that assembly organizers should not be held liable for violent behaviour committed by others,

Having duly noted the assurances provided by the Speaker of the Council of Representatives and the Bahraini delegation regarding the significant legislative and institutional reforms carried out by the authorities in reaction to the report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, including amending the Penal Code with a view to strengthening freedom of expression, creating the position of Ombudsman within the Ministry of the Interior and a Special Investigations Unit within the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and setting up a foundation to provide compensation for victims of abuse; taking note also of the Speaker’s 9 January 2013 letter, wherein he indicates that 3 police and security officers have thus far been sentenced to seven-year prison terms for ill-treating demonstrators, with another 12 cases against law enforcement officers pending before the courts,

Considering the following information on file: on 6 November 2012, Mr. Fairooz, who was visiting the United Kingdom that day, was stripped of his nationality by an administrative decision, along with 30 others, under the Citizenship Law, which permits the revocation of nationality when a holder of Bahraini citizenship undermines State security; Mr. Fairooz, who states that he has always been committed to the peaceful expression of views, the rejection of violence and the promotion of political reform to create a genuine constitutional monarchy, is now stateless as a result; of the 31 persons affected by this decision, 9 decided to challenge it, but only one actually brought a case to court, in June 2013,

Emphasizing that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that no one is to be arbitrarily deprived of nationality, that the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which Bahrain is not a party, enshrines the basic principle that no one should be deprived of nationality if such deprivation results in statelessness, and that exceptions to this principle under the Convention require that a State wishing to deprive an individual of his or her nationality do so in accordance with the law and with full procedural guarantees, including the right to a fair hearing,

Aware that on 28 July 2013 the Council of Representatives reportedly adopted recommendations giving the authorities the power to revoke the citizenship of anyone recognized as guilty of committing an act of terrorism or incitement thereto and to ban all protests in the capital, Manama, and that the King of Bahrain has reportedly ordered the swift implementation of these measures,

Bearing in mind further that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in her opening address on 9 September 2013 before the 24th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, stated that "the human rights situation in Bahrain remains an issue of serious concern: the deep polarization of society and the harsh clampdown on human rights defenders and peaceful protesters continue to make a durable solution more difficult to secure. I reiterate my call on Bahrain to fully comply with its international human rights commitments, including respect for the rights to freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association. The cancellation of the scheduled visit of the Special Rapporteur on Torture is regrettable, and important recommendations made by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry have still not been implemented. I also wish to express my disappointment that the cooperation with the Government of Bahrain, which started fruitfully with the deployment of an OHCHR team in December 2012, has not developed further and an OHCHR follow-up mission has been stalled since then",

Drawing attention to the 24 April 2013 report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of assembly (A/HRC/23/39), which qualifies the specific situation of Bahrain with the words, "peaceful assemblies have been prohibited or repressed because the [messages] conveyed do not please the authorities". The report also states: "[The Special Rapporteur] is particularly troubled by the imposition of blanket bans in many States, such as… Bahrain, typically in the interests of national security, public safety or public order. He firmly believes that such blanket bans are intrinsically disproportionate and discriminatory measures as they impact on all citizens willing to exercise their right to freedom of peaceful assembly",

Noting further the statement by the Bahraini delegation at the hearing held during the 129th IPU Assembly (October 2013) asserting that the country is steadily advancing, including with respect to the full implementation of the BICI recommendations and offering to make available the quarterly reports detailing the steps taken in this regard by the authorities,

Noting with regret that the Speaker of the Council of Representatives, in his letter of 25 September 2013, responded to the proposal for an on-site visit to Bahrain by stating that there was nothing further to add given that the parliamentary authorities had already provided all the necessary information to the Committee, while the Bahraini delegation, at the aforesaid hearing, declared that the authorities remained committed to responding to any further queries,

1. Thanks the Speaker of the Council of Representatives and the members of the Bahraini delegation for their cooperation and the information they have provided;

2. Appreciates their continued readiness to provide further information on any outstanding questions there may be in this case;

3. Remains concerned, however, at the absence of evidence of an effective official investigation into the detailed allegations of ill-treatment inflicted on Mr. Fairooz and Mr. Matar in custody, particularly as the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry has reported that it received numerous other complaints alleging very similar treatment at the hands of law enforcement officials, and has reached unequivocal conclusions regarding the use of torture and other forms of physical and psychological abuse of detainees during and after the protests and the lack of accountability of law enforcement officials;

4. Emphasizes its profound concern that the alleged victims have apparently not been kept informed of steps taken in the investigation into their alleged ill-treatment, including the decision to close it, and urgently requests to be provided with a copy of that decision, the communications by which Mr. Fairooz and Mr. Matar were informed of the closure, the investigation report detailing the concrete steps that the authorities have taken to shed light on the allegations and, in the light of the contradictory information on file, a copy of the record of the detainees’ visitors, particularly for the first month of the detention;
   

5. Expresses its perplexity, following examination of the translated texts of the first-instance and appeal judgment against Mr. Fairooz, as to the legal justification of the depiction of his actions as criminal, in the light of the relevant international human rights norms and the observations that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has made about the situation in Bahrain, and accepts therefore the offer made by the Bahraini delegation to provide clarification in the matter;

6. Notes with deep concern that, close to one year after Mr. Fairooz was stripped of his nationality, he still does not know why this decision was taken; emphasizes that, under international law, the revocation of nationality is an extremely serious measure, all the more so if it leads to statelessness, and should only be taken with full respect for due process, which should include hearing the individual concerned; expresses its appreciation for the official assurances that Mr. Fairooz can challenge the revocation in the courts of Bahrain, but considers that this should not be understood as exempting the competent authorities from the requirement to inform him in advance of the grounds for such a decision, so as to allow him, apart from anything else, to prepare a defence;

7. Reaffirms the value that an on-site mission would have in giving a better understanding of this case and moving towards a solution, given the important and complex issues involved, and therefore urges the Speaker of the Council of Representatives to give further consideration to the mission proposal;

8. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to the parliamentary authorities and to the source;

9. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case.

---

* The delegation of Bahrein expressed its reservation regarding the resolution.

---

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 129th IPU Assembly and related meetings" in PDF format (file size 1121 Kb approximately). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEHUMAN RIGHTSMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS