The workshop “Prevention through Documentation” mainstreaming the use of the Istanbul protocol was organized in collaboration between El Nadim center and IRCT in the city of Ain Sokhna – Egypt in the period between the 23rd and 26th of November 2007. the workshop was preceded by a three months preparation period which was coordinated by Dr. Ragia El Gerzawy, physician at El Nadim center in cooperation of a national training team consisting of Dr. Shawki El Akabawi, Professor of Psychiatry and former chairperson of the neuropsychiatric department at Al Azhar university, Dr. Hisham Farag, Director of Forensic medicine in Kafr El Sheikh governorate, Mr. Mahmoud Qandil, independent lawyer and human rights activist, Mr. Ahmed Seif human rights activist and lawyer and founder of Hisham Mubarak Law Center, Dr. Mona Hamed and Dr. Aida Seif El Dawla from Nadim center. The workshop was joined by an international training team consistent of Ms. Hulya Ucpinar, lawyer and activist form Turkey and member of the team who developed the Istanbul protocol and Dr. Rusudan, Professor of Forensic medicine and ice Dean of the university of Georgia. Representing IRCT was Ms. Susanne Kjer.
Identification cards and preliminary assessment of participants 15 doctors and 22 lawyers participated in the workshop.
A questionnaire addressing issues of professional identification and past experience in documentation of cases of torture was distributed to participants on the eve of the first day of the workshop.
Workshop
organized
by El Nadim and IRCT
Ain
Sokhna - Egypt
23-26
November 2007
The
workshop "Prevention through Documentation" mainstreaming the use
of the Istanbul protocol was organized in collaboration between El
Nadim center and IRCT in the city of Ain Sokhna - Egypt in the
period between the 23rd
and 26th
of November 2007. the workshop was preceded by a three months
preparation period which was coordinated by Dr. Ragia El Gerzawy,
physician at El Nadim center in cooperation of a national training
team consisting of Dr. Shawki El Akabawi, Professor of Psychiatry and
former chairperson of the neuropsychiatric department at Al Azhar
university, Dr. Hisham Farag, Director of Forensic medicine in Kafr
El Sheikh governorate, Mr. Mahmoud Qandik, independent lawyer and
human rights activist, Mr. Ahmed Seif human rights activist and
lawyer and founder of Hisham Mubarak Law Center, Dr. Mona Hamed and
Dr. Aida Seif El Dawla from Nadim center. The workshop was joined by
an international training team consistent of Ms. Hulya Uspinar,
lawyer and activist form Turkey and member of the team who developed
the Istanbul protocol and Dr. Rusudan, Professor of Forensic medicine
and ice Dean of the university of Georgia. Representing IRCT was Ms.
Susanne Kjer.
Identification
cards and preliminary assessment of participants
15
doctors and 22 lawyers participated in the workshop. A questionnaire
addressing issues of professional
identification and past experience in documentation of cases of
torture was distributed to participants on the eve of the first day
of the workshop.
The
following is the profile of the participants:
A.
Lawyers
Number:
22 lawyers and legal experts, including 19 men and 3 women. The
nature of their work ranged between working in private offices and
human rights organizations. A number of the lawyers were members of
the freedom committee of the Bar association.
Age:
Ranged between 26 and 56 years old, with the majority of legal
participants in their thirties.
Responsibilities
in their respective work places:
Defense lawyers (2), torture investigations (19), legal counseling
(12), legal researchers (15), fact finding (14), other legal
responsibilities (3).
Years
of experience:
ranged between 4 and 17 years.
Setting
of practice:
Human rights organization (12), Judiciary, Ministry of health,
Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior (1), private office (13),
non governmental organization (4).
Nature
of contribution to anti torture activities:
Conferences, seminars (20), Academic courses (9), Training (11) in
addition to defense of victims of torture.
Knowledge
of Istanbul
protocol standards:
No previous knowledge (4), little knowledge (15), good knowledge
(3).
Personal
experience in legal investigations, litigation, evaluations or
preparing legal reports on torture/ill treatment allegations:
ranged between one and five years.
Experience
of any reprisals in the form of threats or harm to oneself or family
members because of legal investigation/litigation efforts:
10 participants said they were subject to such reprisals.
Number
of legal investigations on torture/ill treatment allegations
participant has been personally involved in during the past 12
months:
Replies ranged between none and 54. The majority ranged between 3
and 5 cases.
Proportion
of involvement conducted in places of detention or prison in the
past 12 months:
None (about half of the group) to a few hours.
Proportion
of cases of alleged torture and ill treatment within the past 12
months where a medical expert was consulted to evaluate client:
None (9 responses), 54 (one response), the rest ranging between once
and three times.
How
often did findings of official forensic medical reports fail to
document evidence of torture or ill treatment documented by
consulted medical expert:
No response (2), rarely (1), sometimes (7), often (8), does not
apply (3).
Problems
that affect personal ability to effectively investigate and/or
litigate torture and ill treatment in Egypt:
|
|
Not |
A |
Very |
|
Inadequate |
2 |
5 |
11 |
|
Insufficient |
4 |
9 |
6 |
|
Lacking |
0 |
7 |
13 |
|
Clients/detainees |
0 |
6 |
13 |
|
Absence |
0 |
1 |
18 |
|
Intimidation |
0 |
3 |
14 |
|
Prosecutors |
0 |
8 |
11 |
|
Investigations |
0 |
4 |
13 |
|
Ineffective |
0 |
4 |
15 |
|
Ineffective |
0 |
4 |
15 |
|
Lack |
0 |
5 |
14 |
|
Inadequate |
1 |
3 |
13 |
|
Lack |
2 |
14 |
3 |
|
Judges |
9 |
7 |
2 |
|
Corruption |
0 |
4 |
15 |
|
Corruption |
2 |
12 |
4 |
|
Lack |
2 |
5 |
11 |
|
Inadequate |
1 |
7 |
9 |
|
Police |
0 |
6 |
13 |
Problems
affecting the quality and accuracy of the documentation of torture
and ill treatment:
|
|
Not |
A |
Very |
|
Inadequate |
0 |
10 |
10 |
|
Insufficient |
0 |
6 |
14 |
|
Legals |
0 |
9 |
11 |
|
Legal |
0 |
6 |
14 |
|
Inadequate |
0 |
8 |
12 |
|
Inadequate |
0 |
9 |
11 |
|
Police |
0 |
7 |
13 |
|
Forensic |
0 |
10 |
10 |
|
Inadequate |
0 |
8 |
12 |
|
The |
1 |
6 |
13 |
|
Judges/adjudicators |
1 |
5 |
14 |
|
Lack |
1 |
7 |
12 |
How
do the following specific factors contribute to inadequate medical
evaluations of torture and ill treatment?
|
|
Not |
A |
Very |
|
The |
3 |
5 |
12 |
|
Inadequate |
2 |
8 |
8 |
|
Inadequate |
1 |
9 |
11 |
|
Inadequate |
0 |
8 |
11 |
|
Inadequate |
0 |
9 |
12 |
|
Inadequate |
0 |
7 |
14 |
|
Inadequate |
0 |
7 |
14 |
|
Poorly |
0 |
4 |
17 |
|
Poor |
0 |
11 |
10 |
Personal
Views
|
Statement |
Agree |
Disagree |
|
1. |
17 |
5 |
|
2. |
12 |
10 |
|
3. |
15 |
7 |
|
4. |
6 |
16 |
|
5. |
2 |
20 |
|
6. |
9 |
12 |
|
7. |
4 |
16 |
|
8. |
7 |
12 |
|
9. |
9 |
8 |
|
10. |
13 |
7 |
|
11. |
8 |
11 |
|
12. |
18 |
2 |
|
13. |
18 |
0 |
Need
for training in the following components of the legal and medical
investigations into torture and ill-treatment:
|
|
Not |
A |
Very |
|
Relevant |
2 |
6 |
13 |
|
Rights |
3 |
10 |
8 |
|
Rights |
3 |
7 |
11 |
|
Knowledge |
3 |
7 |
11 |
|
Knowledge |
0 |
2 |
17 |
|
State's |
2 |
6 |
13 |
|
Requirements |
1 |
6 |
14 |
|
Identification, |
1 |
12 |
7 |
|
Effective |
3 |
8 |
9 |
|
How |
2 |
5 |
14 |
|
Protection |
0 |
6 |
15 |
|
The |
4 |
6 |
11 |
|
The |
2 |
7 |
12 |
|
How |
1 |
3 |
17 |
B.
Doctors:
Number:
15 doctors participated in the workshop, 10 men and 5 women.
Ages
ranged between 26 and 60.
Specialties
included psychiatrists (3), GPs (2), general surgeons (4), forensic
doctors (2), pediatricians (2) gynecologists (1), anesthetists (1).
Years
in the profession:
ranged from one year to 35 years, with the majority having an
experience of around 20 years.
Place
of practice:
Primary health care (2), governmental hospital (6), private
hospital (1), private clinic (2), rehabilitation center (3), human
rights organization (5).
Responsibilities
at work:
Medical care (4), medical documentation of torture (4), medical
counseling (3), psychiatric care (5), documentation of psychiatric
impact of torture (2), psychological counseling (3), other (2).
Years
of practice in the documentation of alleged cases of torture:
None (9), 1- 5 years (2), more than 10 years (4).
Number
of torture cases investigated in the last 12 months:
None (12), three (1), ten (1), many (1). In the majority of cases
the examination took place in the presence of relatives or friends
of the victim. In two cases only the examination took place in the
presence of the prosecutors and none of the participants examined
victims of torture either in the presence of the police or inside a
detention center.
Harassment
by police of doctor or member of his/her family because of
involvement in the assessment of victims of torture:
Yes in 9 responses, no in one response and the remainder did not
reply to this question.
Training
received specifically on the documentation of physical and
psychological evidence of torture and ill treatment:
None (10), once (3), twice (2). The training ranged between academic
courses (4), internet courses (2) and working under direct
supervision (5).
Previous
knowledge of Istanbul Protocol standards on the effective MEDICAL
investigation and documentation of torture and ill treatment?
None (6), little (4), moderate (1) and very much (1).
Use
of a standardized evaluation form for your assessments of torture
and ill treatment? Yes (3), No (7).
Undertaking
assessments of psychological evidence:
Yes (5), No (6)
Number
of medical evaluations of torture/ill treatment allegations in the
past 12 months:
15 cases in two responses.
Number
of times testified in court as a medical expert on physical and/or
psychological evidence of torture or ill treatment:
Five (one response), three (one response), once (two responses).
Number
of times the following components were included in your medical
evaluations of torture and ill treatment
|
|
Never |
Sometimes |
Always |
|
3 |
1 |
6 |
|
3 |
2 |
6 |
|
1 |
3 |
2 |
|
3 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
3 |
3 |
|
1 |
2 |
6 |
|
1 |
2 |
7 |
|
2 |
1 |
7 |
|
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
3 |
1 |
1 |
|
4 |
4 |
1 |
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
|
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
4 |
1 |
3 |
|
1 |
3 |
3 |
To
the best of your knowledge, are there any legal restraints or
regulations that prevent you from making conclusions in your medical
evaluations about the possibility of torture and ill treatment?
No (7), Don't know (8).
Average
time spent on medical evaluations of torture and ill treatment.
Responses ranged between 5 and 75 minutes, the majority in the range
of 20 minutes and half an hour.
Extent
to which following problems affect personal ability to effectively
document medical evidence (physical and/or psychological) of torture
and ill treatment:
|
|
Not |
A |
Very |
|
Insufficient |
1 |
2 |
8 |
|
Inadequate |
2 |
5 |
3 |
|
Inadequate |
1 |
4 |
3 |
|
Inadequate |
1 |
5 |
3 |
|
Inadequate |
1 |
4 |
4 |
|
Inadequate |
0 |
3 |
5 |
|
Police |
1 |
2 |
5 |
|
Fear |
1 |
4 |
1 |
|
Inadequate |
1 |
4 |
3 |
|
The |
1 |
2 |
5 |
|
The |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
Detainees |
3 |
4 |
2 |
|
Judges/adjudicators |
2 |
1 |
4 |
|
Lack |
0 |
2 |
3 |
|
Lack |
0 |
4 |
3 |
Personal
Views
|
Statement |
Agree |
Disagree |
|
1. |
11 |
2 |
|
2. |
4 |
10 |
|
3. |
10 |
4 |
|
4. |
2 |
12 |
|
5. |
5 |
9 |
|
6. |
4 |
9 |
|
7. |
2 |
11 |
|
8. |
7 |
6 |
|
9. |
8 |
3 |
|
10. |
9 |
4 |
|
11. |
4 |
9 |
|
12. |
13 |
0 |
|
13. |
13 |
0 |
Training
needs
|
|
Not |
A |
Very |
|
0 |
2 |
11 |
|
1 |
4 |
9 |
|
0 |
1 |
12 |
|
2 |
1 |
11 |
|
0 |
3 |
10 |
|
1 |
4 |
9 |
|
0 |
1 |
11 |
|
1 |
1 |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
11 |
|
0 |
6 |
7 |
|
0 |
3 |
9 |
|
0 |
5 |
9 |
|
1 |
4 |
8 |
|
1 |
4 |
7 |
Expectations
from workshop
Expectation
of both doctors and lawyers from the training can be summarized under
two main themes:
Development
of more knowledge and skill in the documentation of cases of
torture.
Development
of a mechanism of collaboration between the two disciplines.
Workshop
Proceedings
(Enclosed
workshop schedule)
Day
One: Friday 23rd
of November 2007
(All
plenary)
The
first day was organized in plenary sessions involving both doctors
and lawyers.
In
the first session Dr. Ragia el Gerzawy welcomed the participants,
outlined the objectives of the workshop, coordinated the introduction
of the participants and explained some logistics surrounding the days
of the workshop.
Then
Ms. Susanne Kjer, representing the IRCT welcomed participants and
introduced the role of the IRCT in general and its role in following
up the prevention through documentation project.
Ms.
Hulya Uspinar was the first speaker, presenting the main aspects of
the Istanbul protocol and its development, using power point
presentations. There followed a discussion of the importance of the
protocol and its implementation. The discussion also addressed the
difficulty in its application in countries which lack democracy and
where torture is practiced on a wide scale. There was also some
misunderstanding among participants regarding the nature of the
protocol, since several believed that it had the status of the
convention which requires the ratification of states. Ms. Uspinar and
Dr. Akabawy explained the status of the protocol as a tool for use by
doctors and lawyers, and not a document for state endorsement.
The
next session, addressing the situation in Egypt, was conducted by Dr.
Ragia and Mr. Ahmed Seif. Dr. Ragia made a short presentation
explaining the agenda of the working groups. The presentation of the
working groups and the discussion that followed was administered by
Mr. Ahmed Seif.
The
group broke into four random, mixed groups, each with the task to
reply to the following questions:
How
do you perceive the current situation of torture in Egypt as regards
its prevalence; where does it happen, against whom and by whom, and
who is responsible?
What
are the difficulties that face people working on the prevention of
torture. What are the legal obstacles? What are the problems related
to police behavior and what are the difficulties encountered in
documentation?
What
are the efforts made to address the issue of torture? How effective
are they? What are the positive developments that happened in Egypt
in that regard, if any?
The
group presentations were as follows:
Group
One:
Torture
in Egypt is widespread. It is a systematic policy and practice taking
place in detention centers, prisons, checkpoints and state security
headquarters. It also happens in houses and places belonging to the
military intelligence. Victims of torture could be all Egyptian
citizens, mostly non activists. There was some disagreement regarding
this point. But there was an agreement that torture is practiced by
the authorities.
Forms
of torture include physical torture (e.g. use of electricity,
hanging, burning with cigarettes) and psychological torture such as
deprivation from basic needs such as sleep, going to the toilet, and
humiliation.
The
authorities are responsible for torture. Some of the participants
think that public opinion is also responsible because it is passive
and does not challenge torture.
Difficulties
in addressing torture included legal difficulties related to the
Egyptian legislation, the attitude of the prosecution, the lack of
experience and the difficulty in reaching victims and people's
sense that there is no hope in obtaining justice. Also hospitals
contribute to the difficulties since they refuse to prepare reports
or refuse to give the reports to the victims. Also the delayed
release of the official forensic report was identified as a
difficulty.
As
for efforts of resistance the group agreed that there is an increase
in such efforts, although they do not amount to what is needed in
comparison to the widespread use of torture. People are more aware of
the phenomenon and so is the media. In addition popular initiatives
are being taken to protest the practice of torture and more victims
are speaking out and filing complaints.
Group
Two:
Group
two was more general in its output. It decided that torture is
practiced by anybody who has power against those who do not. The
parties responsible is the regime, the legislators, the silent media,
and the complicity doctors in addition to everybody who participates
one was or the other in torture.
Regarding
difficulties group two mentioned Egyptian legislation, lack of the
independence of the judiciary, the lack of witness protection, the
lack of legal measures to enact the convention against torture. The
group also mentioned the dual role of the prosecution in pressing
charges and carrying out the investigations, and the complicity of
the public prosecution. The group recognized that those difficulties
are reflected in certain practices such as the reluctance of the
prosecution to undertake its prime responsibility as the defender of
the interest of society, the lack of inspection of detention centers,
police stations and prisons and the weakness of the role played by
the national council for human rights. They also indicated to the
difficulty related to the affiliation of prison doctors to the
Ministry of Interior and finally the total lack of supervision of
state security headquarters, in addition to absence of human rights
education and the scarcity of material and informative resources and
courage among the victims.
Regarding
documentation, group two mentioned the difficulties they encounter in
meeting victims and that the attitude of doctors complicates that
difficulty. They also noted the lack of cooperation on part of the
hospitals and the complicity of forensic medical authorities, which
undermines any efforts to combat torture. The group stressed the
importance of qualified and trained doctors and lawyers empowered
with commitment, knowledge and skill.
On
the issue of resistance, the group thinks that this mainly carried
out by individual cases in addition to human rights organizations.
They acknowledge the beginnings of networking efforts such as the
recent initiative of the Egyptians against Torture coalition, which
they considered was a new form of resistance.
Other
positive indicators identified by the second group include an
increase in the number of human rights organizations, more media
interest and attention and the production of some documentaries
addressing torture, all of which led to an increased awareness of the
situation of torture in the country. Some members of the group
believed that the lack of religious commitment leads to the practice
of torture and that the Egyptian citizen is psychologically brought
up to accept humiliation and that education of human rights
principles should start at school and in universities through an
amendment of educational curricula. Knowledge, they say, is crucial
in addressing torture and that this workshop is an example of how
such knowledge can be built.
Group
three:
The
group believes that torture is widespread in all places of detention,
that it is a systematic policy practiced by the policy and that
sometimes certain houses are used for the purpose. In addition
torture is sometimes practiced publicly in the streets, as well as by
traffic police.
Why
is torture practiced? To withdraw confessions, to compliment a third
party, because of any dispute with an officer and frequently with no
reason, since the police officer believes that torture is the natural
way to deal with citizens.
Who
is responsible: the political authorities, the ministry of interior,
the prosecution.
Difficulties:
There
is no comprehensive definition of torture, since in Egypt torture is
defined as torture of an accused (only), to get confessions (other
reasons are not included). There is no specifications for
responsibility. The punishments are mild and administrative
penalties do not exclude the possibility that the officer would
resume his job. The group also complained about the slowness of the
legal procedures and the lack of efficiency on part of the
prosecution. Appeals can take years and obstruct the process of
financial compensation. The average duration of the judicial process
can reach up to 10 years.
Lack
of experience of some lawyers addressing torture cases, especially
lawyers working in private offices.
Lack
of experience and complicity of prosecutors with the police.
Inefficient
supervision of detention places by the prosecution.
Legislations
have not been amended to be in harmony with the convention against
torture. (Article 129 of the criminal law is weak).
Prosecutors
are not trained to use international instruments.
Lack
of experience in adequate documentation among some forensic doctors.
Deficient
documentation efforts and scarcity of organizations who work in the
field of documentation.
Reluctance
of victims to complain about sexual torture.
Efforts
of resistance:
Few,
usually carried out by human rights organizations and many of those
do not work in the field of torture.
Increasing
interest of independent media.
Bloggers,
contributed to the formation of a pubic opinion.
Difficulty
of lobbying activities.
Need
for political will to put an end to torture.
Group
Four:
Torture
is widespread in all police stations and state security headquarters,
even in prison cars. There was one member of the group who did not
believe that it happens in all police stations, but agrees that it
dos take place in many of them.
Groups
susceptible to torture are those who come in contact with police
officers. The likelihood that a citizen can be subjected to torture
is related to the social status of that person and his or her
position in the political opposition or if belonging to a refugee or
minority groups. A member of the group denied the presence of
minority groups in Egypt.
Torture
is practiced by anybody with an authority. Torture can be either
physical or psychological and is frequently primitive and harsh. It
is used to withdraw confessions and as a form of punishment and
terrorizing citizens.
There
is no special place where torture takes place. It can happen anywhere
and is accentuated b the absolute authorities of law enforcement
bodies.
Difficulties:
Torture
is not a crime that justifies expulsion from the job.
The
process of prosecution takes a long time allowing signs of torture
to fade out.
Inability
to access medical reports.
Only
governmental reports are accepted.
Doctors
are not trained to identify psychological effects of torture.
Law
enforcement bodies are not responsible for the treatment of torture
victims.
Medical
reports are given to the police
Police
officers are present during medical examination.
Prosecution
is complicit with police officers.
Officers
compliment each other by covering up for each other.
Lack
of documentation.
Forms
of resistance:
Media
adoption of the issue, in addition to civil society organizations and
bloggers; the foundation of the Egyptians against Torture movement.
Still, there is a need for more work on legislation, more
collaboration with international human rights organizations and more
advocacy and lobbying for more effective supervision of prisons and
police stations. There is also a need for raising awareness regarding
citizens' rights.
During
the discussion additional issues were brought up such as the
restrictions imposed on doctors who cannot report except on visible
injuries. They are not authorized to order hospital admission, but
can only make such a recommendation. Some doctors reported that the
issuance of reports is subject to hospital police which is superior
to the individual doctor. One of the participating forensic doctors
disagreed on the complicity between forensic doctors and denied that
this takes place. He, agreed, however, that the report takes a long
time to be released.
The
third session, following the lunch break, addressed international
guidelines regarding the definition of torture, state
responsibilities
to prevent torture, the differences between national legislation and
international standards. The session was run by Ms. Hulya Uspinar and
Mr. Ahmed Seif. Hulya made a presentation on the international
definition of torture and stressed that an emergency state is not a
pretext to practice torture and that this provision is not respected
in many countries. Still it is an international standard and has to
be lobbied for. She then presented a list of international and
regional organizations who have acknowledged the Istanbul protocol in
their documents. In that context, the Egyptian government who ahs
ratified the convention against torture and the convention against
genocide should be committed to prosecute and stop torture.
Mr.
Ahmed Seif continued the intervention and coordinated the discussion
that followed. He presented the difficulties inherent in the
formulation of the convention since it calls for additional measures
to enact it on the national level. Until this is done, the judge is
unable to implement the provisions of the convention in the criminal
court. The government on the other hand ahs decided not to undertake
those measures and so the issue now is dependent on the strength of
civil lobbying efforts.
The
discussions addressed problems of definition in Egyptian legislation.
A recommendation was made to change article 126 of the criminal code,
allowing people to raise a criminal case on issues of torture without
the involvement of the public prosecution, which closes most files.
Participants also stressed the importance of lobbying activities to
integrate the convention against torture in Egyptian legislation.
The
following session, also the last for the day, addressed international
guidelines
and national legislation related to moral and legal responsibility of
members of the medical profession. The session was run by Dr. Ragia
el Gerzawy who made a historical presentation of the development of
medical ethics, both in national and regional documents. She then
reviewed the development of the relationship between medicine and
human rights starting from the declaration of Tokyo in 1975 issued by
the world medical association, the principles of medical profession
issued by the UN in 1982, the Madrid declaration issued by the world
psychiatric association in 1996, and addressed in detail the
provisions of the Egyptian medical code of ethics. She stressed the
important role that should be played by the doctors' syndicate in
supervising the adherence to those principles as well as the
importance of lawyers making use of information provided to them by
medical professionals.
A
discussion followed and the participating doctors presented some of
the problems they face in their work, especially the need to specify
a specific duration of treatment for the victim, a process which
determines the severity of the injury. They also discussed the
problem of prison doctors being affiliated to the Ministry of
Interior, with no peer supervision and the need of provincial doctors
to receive similar training like the one in this workshop. Lawyers
complained about the lack of cooperation from forensic doctors during
medical examination.
Evaluation
of the day
At
the end of the day, an evaluation sheet was distributed to all
participants. The outcome of the evaluation of the first day was as
follows:
|
Most |
Current |
|
Least |
Istanbul |
|
Subjects |
Istanbul |
|
Subjects |
Applied |
|
Suggestions |
More |
|
Suggestions |
More |
|
Today |
Excellent, |
|
Today's |
Excellent, |
|
Training |
Excellent, |
|
Participants |
Excellent, |
|
Trainers |
Excellent, |
*
* * * *
Day
Two: Saturday 24th
November 2007
Day
two
of the workshop began with a short summary of the evaluation of the
previous day. The schedule was rearranged to meet the requests of the
participants.
The
first session addressed the right to health care as procedural
safeguard. Prof. Rusudan made a presentation of those safeguards
according to international criteria and the criteria of the IP. Dr.
Hesham Farag added a description of the situation in Egypt, also
highlighting the differences that exist between legislation and
practice.
Again
participants went into four random working groups. Each group was
requested to read the three attached papers regarding procedural
safeguards and to respond to the questions at the end of each of the
documents, highlighting the situation in Egypt in each case.
The
group work output was as follows:
Group
One:
Regarding
national legislation and practice:
There
are no legislations organizing procedures except in the case of
forensic medical examination which can be carried out only upon the
request of the public prosecution.
There
is no legislation that regulates who is to be present with the
victim during medical examination.
There
is no legislation that permits the presence of a lawyer during
medical examination.
There
is no legislation that prohibits the presence of police personnel
during the medical examination. The detainee himself or a member of
the family can submit a request for medical examination; the request
is considered by the prosecution which is the sole authority to
refer to medical examination.
There
is no specific police force concerned with the escort of detainees
to forensic medicine. The detainees are usually accompanied by
members of the police force in the respective police station or
prison.
There
is no legislation that sets a deadline for referral of a detainee
for forensic examination.
The
prosecution alone is authorized to receive the medical report. This
right is denied both to the lawyer, the detainee or any other civil
body.
There
are regulations for the medical examination of the detainee before
and after detention, but those are not implemented.
In
case medical examination takes place in a hospital, the police
official does not attend if the examinee is a woman, but always
attends if the detainee is a man.
If
the examines has to be admitted into hospital, he or she are usually
handcuffed to the bed.
There
is frequently a complicity in the relationship between the hospital
administration and the accompanying police force.
Recommendation:
If the police force insists to attend the medical examination, the
doctor ahs to document that in the report. The lawyer would have to
inform the public prosecutor immediately. The mere documentation of
this breach is a warning for the police.
Group
Two:
Current
situation:
Procedures
permit the referral of the detainee or prisoner for medical
examination upon the request of the lawyer, the prosecution, the
detainee or the prison director.
Sometimes
the respective authorities do not grant the request for examination
or postpone it until the signs of torture have faded or else they
report the whole incident as a fight between inmates.
The
detainee is transferred to medical examination by the police force
itself, which may influence the impartiality of the report.
Regarding
medical reports:
There
is no unified format for writing a medical report.
The
hospital keeps a copy of the report.
NGOs,
syndicates or unions are not entitled to take a copy of the report.
The
police does not usually provide the detainee with a medical
examination at the beginning and end of detention.
In
the case of torture the victim is sent to medical examination and
then returned to the same place where the torture allegedly took
place.
What
can the doctor do?
The
doctor can always refuse to carry out the medical examination in the
presence of members of the police force. Some in the group thought
that it is not right for a doctor to refuse to examine a person who
needs such an examination. But the doctor has to document the
presence of the police in the medical report. Also, doctors breaching
this conduct have to be reported to the syndicate.
The
doctor is also entitled to report to the prosecution in case his or
her recommendations as regards treatment or need for hospitalization
are not taken into consideration.
What
can the lawyer do?
The
lawyer has to immediately inform the public prosecutor or the
technical office of the public prosecution and has to submit a
complaint in case the police force insists to attend the medical
examination.
Recommendations:
A
standard format for medical reporting is needed that can be followed
in all health facilities. Doctors need to be trained on how to fill
that format.
The
detainee should have the right to receive a copy of that report. The
doctor ahs to keep a copy and to send a copy to the doctors'
syndicate, to NGOs involved and to the professional association of
which he or she are members.
In
cases of alleged torture detainees
have to transferred to another detention center.
Copies
of medical reports have to be available at the doctors syndicate.
A
special police force has to be assigned the role of transfer of
prisoners or detainees for examination. This force has to be under
the control of the ministry of justice and not the ministry of
interior.
Group
Three
Legally:
in
case the victim is not in detention he or she go to the prosecution
and from there are referred to forensic medicine.
In
case he or she are in detention their lawyer submits a request to
the public prosecutor who refers the request to the local
prosecution and from there the request is sent to jail or prison
where a forensic doctor is summoned.
In
case the victim is doing a prison sentence the request for forensic
examination is processed in court.
The
law permits the doctor to only carry out the medical examination.
The law does not permit the doctor to refuse the presence of the
police. For the law the doctor is a technical expert.
Detainees
are not entitled to medical examination upon their entry into
detention centers.
There
is no law that calls for a medical examination of inmates. Each case
has to be monitored, which is usually not done.
Medically:
The
situation is different in Cairo than in the governorates.
the
police attends the medical examination and the doctor does not know
that it is his right to ask them to leave.
The
doctor who carries out the examination is not necessarily the one
who writes the report.
If
the victim requests an official report, usually this is not granted,
which is different from what happens in Nadim center for example.
In
some hospitals there is a security hospital and the doctors would
not prepare a report except upon the request of the police.
There
is no standard format for the forensic report except if the
prosecution has a specific request.
Most
doctors are not aware of the rules and they are afraid of police
harassment.
The
victim is never entitled to receive the report which usually goes to
the police.
There
is no mechanism for protection from police harassment.
Group
Four
Egyptian
laws have no special provision to regulate the issuance of medical
reports or having the detainee examined by forensic medicine or any
other treating doctor except through a written request by the
prosecutor general. This can be done upon a request by the lawyer or
if the prosecutor thinks it is necessary. However there is a
procedural prison regulation that calls for the examination of a
person before his incarceration by the prison doctor. Our
recommendation is that the alleged torture victim would be examined
by the forensic authorities or any governmental hospital upon his
request or the request of his lawyer and that he should be
accompanied by an employee of the ministry of justice. We suggest
the establishment of a special police force affiliated to the
ministry of justice. We also suggest that it be mandatory that the
lawyer attend the medical examination. A legal provision is needed
that stresses the right of the detainee to be examined by a forensic
doctor and to be presented to a tripartite committee.
There
is no legal provision that secures the procedural guidelines
necessary in those cases. Those guidelines do not exist in reality.
We
also suggest the establishment of a special medical authority to
examine alleged cases of torture. This authority should enjoy
impunity and be protected from police harassment.
Doctors
are in need of a protection mechanism whether during their presence
with the detainee in the examination room, or in the detention
centers.
A
lawyer should be entitled to request the reference of his client to
forensic examination at any time. The request should be met without
delay. The lawyer should also be able to make note of any breach of
the safeguards in the official documents of the prosecution.
The
second session of the second day was conducted by Prof. Akabawy and
addressed the general considerations in carrying out the interview
and listening to the story of the victim. Prof. Akabawy used a
translated version of the power point presentation of the IP in that
regard. The session was an introduction to the working groups that
followed.
After
the
lunch break participants were divided into a doctors' group and a
lawyers' group. Separately both groups undertook role play in
interviewing victims based on the information gained in the previous
session. A scene of interview was acted and the remainder of the
participants evaluated the performance. The lawyers' session was
coordinated by Mr. Ahmed Seif, Mr. Mahmoud Qandil and Dr. Mona Hamed
and the doctors' session was coordinated by Dr. Akabawy.
The
last session of the day followed the second coffee break. The
doctors' session was run by Dr. Hesham Farag who made an extensive
presentation of the physical evidence of torture. The lawyers'
session addressed the main safeguards that have to be fulfilled in
cases of deprivation of freedom. It was run by Mr. Ahmed Seif and Mr.
Mahmoud Qandil.
Evaluation
of the day
|
Most |
Physical |
|
Least |
International |
|
Subjects |
Deprivation |
|
Subjects |
More |
|
Suggestions |
More |
|
Suggestions |
More |
|
Today |
Excellent |
|
Today's |
Excellent |
|
Training |
Very |
|
Participants |
Active |
|
Trainers |
Excellent |
*
* * * *
Day
Three: Sunday 25th
November 2007
Both
groups continued to work separately
Doctors'
group:
The
first session started with a presentation by Prof. Rusudan regarding
methods of torture and the broad outlines for writing a report,
highlighting the responsibility of doctors in that regard.
Dr.
Hesham Farag continued the presentation on physical evidence of
torture through a large number of power point slides.
In
the remainder of the day doctors continued to train on the
psychological evidence of torture using the case study prepared for
that purpose. The group split up in two smaller groups ach studying
the case and reporting on findings in a medical report. Both groups
presented their work in a plenary of doctors who discussed the group
outputs under the supervision of Prof. Akabawy.
Lawyers
group:
Sessions
addressed two main issues:
The
investigation of cases of torture and maltreatment. The session was
run by Mr. Ahmed Seif, Mr. Mahmoud Qandil and Ms. Hulya Uspinar.
Physical
evidence of torture and maltreatment, presented by Dr. Hesham Farag.
Upon
the request of participants Dr. Ahemd Nassar, forensic doctor, made
an extra session in the period following the lunch break discussing
the rigging and forging scripture. It was a voluntary session and was
attended by a large number of the participants.
Evaluation
of the Day
|
Most |
Writing |
|
Least |
Physical |
|
Subjects |
Writing |
|
Subjects |
Diagnosis |
|
Suggestions |
Short |
|
Suggestions |
Training |
|
Today |
Excellent, |
|
Today's |
Excellent, |
|
Training |
Excellent, |
|
Participants |
Professional |
|
Trainers |
Very |
*
* * * *
Day
four: Monday 26th
of November 2007
On
the fourth day there was a change of schedule where both groups
joined in a plenary since the beginning of the ay. The issue of
report writing was addressed again in more detail by Dr.
Rusudan and Dr. Hesham Farag. Participants discussed the difficulties
they face during writing their reports, especially administrative
problems. They noted that a senior doctor ahs the right to revise and
change their reports, and that they are not in a position to provide
the victim with a copy of the report.
After
the coffee break participants split into three groups
Doctors
only group
Lawyers
only group
Mixed
group (upon their request)
The
mission of the groups was to develop recommendations regarding IP and
how to mainstream it in Egypt, in addition to suggestion of
mechanisms for future follow up and joint work.
The
groups were asked to group their recommendations under two main
titles:
What
can we as a group do?
What
do we request from other parties?
The
group outputs were as follows:
Mixed
Group:
What
do we want to do and how can we do it?
Begin
a long term collaboration between doctors and lawyers in the group.
Raising
awareness regarding the issue of torture and mobilization of
volunteers.
Providing
support to doctors and informing them of available legislation and
regulations.
Expanding
the circles of interested lawyers.
Development
of an internet group that joins the participants and ensures their
continuous networking.
Organization
of monthly meetings for the group.
Collaboration
with other groups and forums which work against torture.
Addressing
torture cases as a group, jointly as doctors and lawyers.
Recommendations
to other parties:
To
the government of Egypt:
Including
physical and psychological evidence of torture in the curricula of
medical schools in addition to the ethics of the profession.
Formation
of a special committee for torture in the national council for human
rights.
Lobbying
for legislative change that permits the victim to file his complaint
directly in court, bypassing the filter of public prosecution.
Increasing
penalties for crimes of torture and depriving officers involved from
their political and civil rights and foremost dismissing them from
their jobs.
Internationally
Amendment
of the statutes of the ICC to the effect that it permits individual
victims of torture to file complaints in case national mechanisms
fail them.
Development
of the principles of IP into an international document that binds
endorsing states.
Lawyers
Group
What
can we do?
Set
up a team of lawyers and doctors concerned with the spread of human
rights culture with special emphasis on torture and how to address
it.
Organization
of media campaign to review and amend legislation.
Mobilization
towards the enactment of the convention against torture.
Monitoring
and documentation of police violence during mass actions.
Establishing
a hot line in the Bar association for torture victims.
Preparation
of an annual report documenting the practice of torture, including
names of officers involved.
Publication
of a series of booklets by the title (Know your rights) to inform
the public and raise awareness regarding the crime of torture.
Organization
of a series of seminars and workshops to address the issue of
torture from all its aspects.
Making
more use of international and regional mechanisms such as the
African court.
Recommendations
to other parties:
Unions
should produce a reference book including all conventions, protocols
and agreements that address torture in addition to national
legislation on the issue. This can be done by the Bar association
and should be distributed free to all member lawyers.
Submitting
an appeal to the People's and Shura council to life the emergency
state, cancel exceptional courts, introduction of the magistrate
system to carry out investigations, undertake measures to set up a
special police force affiliated to the Ministry of justice and amend
provisions 126, 129 and 280 of the criminal code to the effect that
they be in line with international conventions.
Appealing
of the moving the affiliation of prisons and detention centers from
the ministry of interior to the ministry of justice.
Including
the subject of human rights in university curricula in Egypt.
Mobilizing
political parties to play a role in demanding legislative amendment
and to organize mass events to protest the widespread use of
torture.
Call
for the victim's right to direct access to court.
Mobilize
for the victim's right to access his/her medical reports.
Doctors'
Group
What
can we do?
Make
IP available in hospitals where we work.
Organization
of TOT.
More
specialized meetings and training among us.
Following
IP standards in writing reports.
Maintaining
close collaboration with Nadim center and documentation of cases
seen in our respective places of work.
Lobbying
hospital administrations to organize seminars and training fro
doctors to introduce the IP.
Organizing
training in the doctor's syndicate at regular intervals.
Monthly
meeting for the group at El Nadim
Networking
among the group.
Development
of a brochure for all organizations working on torture, including
their contact details.
Listing
of all doctors who are willing to provide voluntary help to victims
of torture.
Revision
of the Arabic translation of IP.
Making
available code of ethics in hospitals.
Recommendations
to other parties:
Nationally:
Organization
of seminars and training workshops in unions and syndicates.
Inclusion
of IP in forensic medicine curriculum.
Lobbying
ministry of health to develop standard format for reporting based on
IP
Lobbying
ministry of justice to set up a department for psychological
forensic medicine.
Lobbying
for the cancellation of ministerial decree that prevents victims of
torture to access their medical reports.
Internationally
Exchange
of experience
After
the group presentations there was a discussion of the different items
and note of the overlap between the different groups. There was then
a round of interventions where participants expressed their opinion
regarding the training. All interventions were positive and
encouraging and looking forward to build on what was achieved in the
four days.
At
the end Dr. Ragia El Gerzawi thanked participants and trainers and
stressed the importance of maintaining contact to work on those
recommendations collectively, providing detailed contacts for El
Nadim, which participates agreed should continue to coordinate their
joint efforts.
The
workshop was concluded with a group picture for both participants and
trainers.
Overall
evaluation of workshop
|
Logistic |
Good |
Average |
Bad |
|
General |
27 |
1 |
|
|
Venue |
24 |
4 |
|
|
Translation |
15 |
8 |
|
|
Duration |
14 |
13 |
|
|
Duration |
16 |
10 |
1 |
|
Sequence |
20 |
10 |
|
|
Time |
8 |
13 |
7 |
|
Organization |
19 |
9 |
|
|
Time |
13 |
16 |
1 |
|
Flexibility |
21 |
7 |
|
|
General |
Yes |
Partly |
No |
|
Were |
19 |
8 |
1 |
|
Did |
25 |
4 |
|
|
Was |
23 |
7 |
|
|
Were |
24 |
4 |
|
|
Training |
Good |
Average |
Bad |
|
Appropriateness |
24 |
4 |
