Over the past year there have been a number of allegations in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that authorities are torturing prisoners. Defendants in a trial of political dissidents, three Britons held in Dubai and two Syrians have come out to say they have been tortured. Now, smuggled handwritten letters by Egyptian prisoners facing trial over alleged Muslim Brotherhood links say that they have been tortured as well.

The reaction from authorities has been to either ignore allegations or dismiss them as fantasy. This approach undermines the UAE’s commitment to the United Nations (UN) Convention Against Torture, which authorities signed up to in July 2012. In each case of alleged torture there has been an emphatic failure to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation.

It is of grave concern that authorities in the UAE are being allowed to misappropriate a crucial treaty for the purposes of furthering a broadly positive international image. Shortly after signing up to the Convention Against Torture, the UAE won a seat on the UN Human Rights Council at the same time as Human Rights Watch were reporting on enforced disappearances and torture in the country. Whilst Emirati authorities fail to meet their obligations it is difficult to conclude anything other than their very public commitment to human rights is nothing but a public relations exercise.

Handwritten letters by Egyptian prisoners include allegations consistent with those made by others, with prisoners saying they have been subjected to beatings, electric shocks and exposed to extremes of temperature in solitary confinement. Prisoners say guards have threatened them with HIV infection, sexual abuse and death while revealing that when they complain to the prosecutor, he has threatened them with further torture if they do not admit the charges against them.

The trial of these Egyptians is due to start on November 5th, when defendants will face charges of illegally establishing a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UAE. It is crucial that authorities address these allegations prior to trial, otherwise the process will have little credibility. Authorities must approach this with impartiality in line with Article 12 of the Convention Against Torture, which requires an investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe an act of torture has been committed.

Concerns about the fairness of a trial for the Egyptians have been raised with the release of a report by the International Commission of Jurists that described a similar trial, that of the UAE 94, as ‘manifestly unfair’. It should be noted that of the 61 men currently serving prison sentences from that trial, 20 of them are on hunger strike protesting against alleged mistreatment by prison authorities.

The link between the UAE 94 and the trial of the Egyptians is clear to see. Both groups are accused of conspiratorial Muslim Brotherhood activities, which is the bogeyman of the day for Emirati authorities when dealing with political opponents. Indeed, the role of the UAE in Egypt’s military coup has been called into question following an interview with Ahmed Shafiq in which the former Egyptian Prime Minister admitted the UAE had given weapons to the Egyptian army prior to the massacres at Rabaa al-Adawiyya and Al Nahda.

There is a clear disconnect between the commitment to protect human rights made by the UAE and the reality of their actions in dealing with a political group they dislike and citizens who call for democratic reforms. Authorities have committed to preventing torture and sit on the Human Rights Council, yet fail to uphold their treaty obligations and openly support massacres by the army in Egypt.

At the heart of the issue here are human stories. The Sonbol family of Egypt is a tragic case in point. Ali Sonbol is an Egyptian who was arrested in the UAE on December 19th 2012 and is accused of illegal Muslim Brotherhood activities. He claims to have been severely beaten by prison guards, leaving him with a number of serious injuries. Tragically, Ali Sonbol’s 24-year-old son was killed in the massacre at Rabaa al-Awawiyya in August. Given that Ali Sonbol is being held at a secret prison it is unclear if he knows his son has been murdered. This family has suffered the full brunt of the UAE’s policies in aggressively attacking anyone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is a sad state of affairs when a country is allowed to, quite clearly, abuse the just cause of protecting human rights. For the Convention Against Torture and Human Rights Council to be effective it is vital that the UAE are demanded to investigate all credible allegations of torture. This includes the case of the Egyptian prisoners, the UAE 94, the three Britons and that of the two Syrians. Until that happens, the UAE are being allowed to make a mockery of the international protection of human rights with families like the Sonbols left to suffer the horrific consequences.

Photograph: Abu Dhabi Police ‘UAE ‘failing to tackle prison torture’
Country accused of ignoring allegations of political prisoners being severely abused.

REDRESS Report forms an integral part of the REDRESS initiative Reparation for Torture: Global Sharing of Expertise, supported by the European Union through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. The Report brings together the wealth of expertise generated and the experience shared in the course of this work, focusing on comparative law and practice relating to accountability and reparation.

Introduction
Torture has many faces. It is both secretive and ubiquitous, an intensely personal ordeal and a practice that affects society as a whole. While its particular features frequently have a local imprint, its prevalence is truly worldwide. This double nature is also reflected in global efforts to combat torture. Prevention of, and accountability and reparation for, torture are first sought at the domestic level. Indeed, international human rights law requires victims1 and those acting on their behalf to exhaust domestic remedies first before bringing claims to international bodies.

Advocacy efforts are also often directed at local actors, with a view to changing domestic mindsets and practices. At the same time, these efforts do not take place in isolation. Regional and international fora provide platforms for litigation and advocacy, and cooperation often transcends national and regional boundaries. Yet in practice, it is still rare for those working on torture cases to come together and share their expertise and experience. As a result, national laws and practices, and particularly jurisprudence, often remain little known externally beyond national borders and lawyers and others concerned may be ignorant of precedents, strategies and best practices developed elsewhere that may provide important tools for their daily work.

Relevant actors may also not fully benefit from having links to their counterparts in other countries and regions as networks remain underdeveloped. Victims of torture and ill-treatment The widespread practice of torture has resulted in a large number of victims from diverse backgrounds. While it is difficult to generalise, and therefore correct to say that anyone may become a victim of torture, it is equally clear that certain categories of persons are at a comparatively greater risk.

This applies in particular to those who are considered as an “enemy” of a regime or a particular way of life. Ill-treatment takes myriad forms, as demonstrated by the jurisprudence of courts and human rights treaty bodies, reports and the experience of human rights defenders.84 In addition to custodial issues of long-standing concern, such as poor prison conditions, solitary confinement, and denial of adequate medical care, which were found to be prevalent to varying degrees in all regions,85 there has been an increasing practice of ill-treatment outside the custodial context. This applies in particular to the use of excessive force, and other methods, during demonstrations. In the course of the uprisings in the Arab world, police, security and army forces repeatedly used teargas, birdshot and other weapons.

In Bahrain, for example, protesters were targeted and in several instances deliberately attacked – even though they ostensibly did not pose a security threat – a pattern suggesting that the policing of demonstrations was used as a cover for torture. The Legislative Framework: Making Torture and Ill-Treatment a Criminal Offence Many legal systems are characterised by shortcomings that undermine protection against, and accountability and justice for torture. These shortcomings are often due to the fact that unreformed ordinary legislation, such as criminal laws, does not adequately reflect international standards and best practices. As a result, such laws are ill-suited to address torture-specific concerns. Jurisprudence: Remedies and reparation for torture and ill-treatment While compensation frequently constitutes the primary or even only form of reparation, certain high courts have awarded broader forms of reparation, especially in the context of constitutional remedies. … Download “Full Report“

About REDRESS
REDRESS is a human rights organisation that helps torture survivors obtain justice and reparation. REDRESS works with survivors to help restore their dignity and to make torturers accountable.

Photograph: Sheikh Issa bin Zayed Al Nahyan & Abu Dhabi Police Torture Guys in the Desert, United Arab Emirates. Video Report

The research conducted for this report confirms existing perceptions that the government persistently evades its international and domestic obligations. Yet despite these failures, victims are aware of their right to compensation for the harms they have suffered and that the government has the responsibility to fulfill this right’ Congolese courts have ordered the government to pay compensation to victims in at least eight cases, on the basis of its obligations because those convicted are members of the Congolese military. No payments have been made in any of these cases to date—a clear indication of the judicial system’s weak ability to enforce the law.

Following field research in late 2009 and a 2010 workshop in Kinshasa, ICTJ produced Judicial Reparations for the Victims of Gross Violations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a report in French on the challenges of enforcing court-ordered reparations.

The report included the views of victims’ representatives and respected Congolese jurists who were members of both the military and civilian justice systems. The report contained recommendations on how court-ordered reparations could be implemented. Relying on the case study of the situation in Mbandaka, the capital of Équateur Province, where a gender reparations project had since been undertaken, ICTJ conducted further field research and analysis in July 2011.

This briefing paper is based on Report on Judicial Reparations for Victims of Grave Violations in the DRC, published in 2011 by ICTJ’s DRC Program and subsequent field research that year. View ICTJ’s briefing: The Failure to Fulfill Court-Ordered Reparations  for Victims of Serious Crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

UN General Assembly, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law: [Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 21 March 2006, A/RES/60/147]

“I was 16 years old and living with my parents at the institute my grandfather had founded 18 miles outside of Durban, South Africa, in the middle of the sugar plantations. We were deep in the country and had no neighbors, so my two sisters and I would always look forward to going to town to visit friends or go to the movies.

One day, my father asked me to drive him to town for an all-day conference, and I jumped at the chance. Since I was going to town, my mother gave me a list of groceries she needed and, since I had all day in town, my father asked me to take care of several pending chores, such as getting the car serviced.

When I dropped my father off that morning, he said, ‘I will meet you here at 5:00 p.m., and we will go home together.’

After hurriedly completing my chores, I went straight to the nearest movie theatre. I got so engrossed in a John Wayne double-feature that I forgot the time. It was 5:30 before I remembered. By the time I ran to the garage and got the car and hurried to where my father was waiting for me, it was almost 6:00.

He anxiously asked me, ‘Why were you late?’

I was so ashamed of telling him I was watching a John Wayne western movie that I said, ‘The car wasn’t ready, so I had to wait,’ not realizing that he had already called the garage.

When he caught me in the lie, he said: ‘There’s something wrong in the way I brought you up that didn’t give you the confidence to tell me the truth. In order to figure out where I went wrong with you, I’m going to walk home 18 miles and think about it.’ So, dressed in his suit and dress shoes, he began to walk home in the dark on mostly unpaved, unlit roads.

I couldn’t leave him, so for five-and-a-half hours I drove behind him, watching my father go through this agony for a stupid lie that I uttered. I decided then and there that I was never going to lie again.

I often think about that episode and wonder, if he had punished me the way we punish our children, whether I would have learned a lesson at all. I don’t think so. I would have suffered the punishment and gone on doing the same thing. But this single non-violent action was so powerful that it is still as if it happened yesterday.

That is the power of non-violence.

Boycott UAE – Human Rights Campaign Investor demands serious reputational damage and damages for breaches of various rights!
We appreciate and support ‘Boycott UAE‘ Campaign