Response to U.S. report (part VI) [Archives:2002/28/Reportage]

d: Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile
Under this point the report says, Despite these constitutional and other legal provisions, arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention without charge are common practices.
– The answer is included in this allegation itself. The valid constitution and laws do not allow the existence of such common practices. In order that the report is characterized by credibility there should be a mention of cases upon which we can respond in a refuting manner. As the allegation comes in contradictory and unspecified way, it is then far from reason. Details have previously been mentioned in the course of replying to what has been mentioned in the general allegations section.
The report says In May the PSO detained journalist Hassan al-Zaidi and held him incommunicado for 16 days, at times in solitary confinement. In September the PSO again detained al-Zaidi for two weeks.
– In reality the above mentioned had been detained on 8 September 2001 due to his connection with kidnappers of the Trade Attaché at the German embassy and had been released after the end of the case. It is not true that he was held in solitary confinement during the period of his detention.
In the same paragraph or the report In practice many authorities abide by these provisions only if bribed.
– We want to clarify here that decisions of release are compulsory to implement by the concerned bodies as they are issued by the same authority that has the right to order imprisonment and there is no room for compromise regarding decisions of release or detention. This is stated in the law. It would have been better if the report mentioned some of such cases to be responded to.
In another part the report mentions that, Amar Mahmoud Ali Abdo al-Madhaji was arrested by Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officials in May and held without charge for approximately 6 weeks. Al-Madhajis family claimed he was walking down the street in Sanaa, coerced a confession from him regarding his purported involvement in terrorist activities, and then held him incommunicado. The government denied the familys version of al-Madhajis arrest.
– For clarification we say that Amar, the son of Mahmoud Ali al-Madhaji was held on charge of trying to communicate with a foreign side and he was carrying a letter addressed to the U.S. ambassador on the incident of USS Cole Destroyer and the information in it proved to be untrue. He was charged with offering false statement and troubling authorities. The case was referred to prosecution on 2 July 2001.
In another point the report mentioned that In cases in which a criminal suspect is at large, security forces in some instances detain a relative while the suspect is being sought.
– This is a groundless allegation. Constitution and laws have safeguarded the citizens freedom unless he had committed a crime requiring his detention. This is a general irrevocable rule. If it happens in some cases that a criminal suspects relatives are held i means that either they are involved in the same case with the suspects or for sheltering them. These are very rarely happening cases, but they happened then the law is the reference to be referred to.
The report mentions that Aziz Mohammed Musaid, who was arrested in Taiz in September 1998 and charged with intent to commit adultery, was released on bail in December 2000; however, his trial remained pending. Musaids case has languished and he remained in jail because the presiding judge, Abdul Jabar Taha al-Kharasani, refused to adjucate the case. In October 1999, the minister of interior ordered al-Kharasani to turn over his cases, including Musaids, to another judge, but he refused to do so. Al-Kharasani was finally compelled to do so in December 2000, and another judge has taken the case.
– It has been previously clarified in detail that the mentioned case was decided by the court and that tackling it in the way it has been mentioned in the report is considered a deformation of laws and intervention in internal affairs because the interior minister usually does not give orders on turning over cases for that is the job entrusted with judiciary itself. Assessing the judges work is the task of judicial inspection authority and giving directives to the judge is defined in the judiciary power law , which entrusted that to judiciary. The minister of interior could not give his orders to the judge to turn over the cases to another judge or court because that means interference by the executive power in affairs of the judiciary power. The constitution and law provisions have prohibited that and there is no nonsuit due to prescription. The interior minister is within the executive power which is subject to prosecution supervision and implemntor of orders, decisions and sentences issued by judiciary pursuant to texts of constitution and provisions of valid laws.
The report has also mentioned that Unauthorized private prisons also exist in tribal areas in which the government does not exercise authority effectively. Persons detained in such prisons often are held for strictly personal reasons an d without trial or sentencing.
– This point has been previously made clear within the reply on General Allegations heading. We affirmed that there were absolutely no unofficial prisons and prisoners are committed to official prisons in accordance with specific measures, laws and rules. The one who prepared the report should have defined whereabouts of the prisons he meant.
The report says In December the government deported approximately 100 foreigners, many of whom were studying at Muslim religious schools, who allegedly were in the country illegally. The government claimed that these persons were suspected of inciting violence or engaging in criminal acts by promoting religious extremism. The government deported them using existing laws that required foreigners to register with the police or immigration authorities within a month of arrival in the country.
– The state, represented by the ministry of interior seeks to check up persons breaching Yemeni immigration and passport laws and to take legal measures against them, including deportation. As a result of campaigns carried out by concerned authorities at immigration and passport authority, the mentioned students were detected and some were deported for violating the law and the remainders of the group were not deported after they had rectified their position. This is done by various states for the implementation of their existing laws and rules.
e; Under the paragraph of Denial of Fair Public Trial, it has been mentioned that The constitution provides for an autonomous judiciary and independent judges; however, the judiciary is not fully independent, and it is weak and severely hampered by corruption, executive branch interference, and the frequent failure of the he authorities to enforce judgments Judges are appointed by the executive branch, and some have been harassed, reassigned, or removed from office following rulings against he government.
This phrase has been repeated previously and here is a detailed clarification of the points mentioned though the title of the paragraph itself is unacceptable on the whole.
First of all judges are appointed by the Judiciary Power and appointment decisions are issued by the Judiciary Supreme Council that is the highest at the Judiciary Power chaired by the president of the republic. This seems the reason why the person who prepared the report confused between the executive and the judicial powers in the question of appointing judges.
It is absolutely incorrect that the judges who issue rulings against the government are removed. many of judges who have issued such rulings are still working normally at their courts and many of them have occupied senior posts at Judiciary and we wonder where the report has acquire such a mistaken information. Concerning judiciary weakness, it is a questionable matter as all judges are not appointed in judiciary career unless they have graduated from the college of law. Moreover, before granting him this title, the judge should have passed two years of study at the Higher Institute for Judiciary and then he would be granted a degree of assistant judge. The ministry of justice has, in cooperation with governmental and non-governmental sides, exerted great efforts in training and qualification of judges and members of general prosecution in fields of human rights, public liberties. Those efforts have yielded acceptable results and played good role in the process of awareness of this important segment regarding human rights. The call is still existing for international organisations and donor countries interested in this field to continue their support .
The report has also mentioned that In August 2000, members of the Bani Dhubian tribe kidnapped judge Adul Rahman Abu Talib….
– For clarification we mention that security forces managed to release the judge through mediation of some notables in order to secure his safety, and even before interference of security forces the mediatory people succeeded in convincing the kidnappers to release the judge.
It has been mentioned in the report that Judges at times appoint attorneys present in their courtrooms to represent indigent defendants; however, such attorneys legally are not required to take the case, although most accept in order to avoid displeasing judges before whom they must appear later.
– Responding to this allegation appointing attorney by judges is obligatory according to the law of legal profession. The allegation of any moral coercion in appointing attorneys is having no evidence.
The report mentions that By law prosecutors are a part of the judiciary and independent of the government; however, in practice prosecutors consider themselves as an extension of the police. The do not receive normal judicial training that judges do, nor do they fulfill their legal obligation to prosecute police who delay reporting arrests and detentions.
– To clarify this point we affirm that the Attorney General is a complainant chief witness in the republic and has the right to file it. Al members of the general prosecution, at various levels in the governorates, work as deputies of the Attorney General, entrusted with supervision and continued regular inspection of detention centres, prisons and juvenile reformatory institutions to be sure about legitimacy of imprisonment and arrest, according to paragraph (g) of Judiciary Power No. (1) for 1991 and according to the prosecution establishment law and provisions of punitive procedures law and other relevant laws. He is also a supervisor on work of judicial monitoring officers. All of them, each within their authorities and specialization, are subordinates of the Attorney General and also subordinates to his deputies in the governorates and districts. The Attorney General deputies are also supervisors on judicial monitoring officers with regard to their jobs, and that is in accordance with article (52) of Judicial Power and provisions of punitive procedures law and other relevant laws.

——
[archive-e:28-v:2002-y:2002-d:2002-07-08-p:./2002/iss28/report.htm]