Human Rights in Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions

The record of correspondence for 2007 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, A/HRC/4/20/Add.1.

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: Death in Custody of Hafed Mansur Al-Zwai

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Urgent appeal dated 31 October 2006 sent with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture

We would like to draw the attention of your Government to information we have received concerning a serious incident which took place in the Tripoli Abu Salim Prison, which reportedly led to the death of one prisoner and the injuring of at least nine others. According to the allegations received, on 4 October 2006, some 190 prisoners were brought back to Abu Salim Prison following a hearing at a court in Tripoli. Upon their return to the Abu Salim prison, some of the prisoners started to protest and an altercation ensued with the prison guards. The prison administration called in security forces from outside the prison to assist the guards in order to control the situation. Between 2pm and 3pm law-enforcement officials reportedly fired tear-gas grenades and live ammunition at some of the prisoners. A prisoner, Hafed Mansur Al-Zwai, received a bullet to the head and died shortly afterwards. Nine other prisoners, Rida Al-Hariri, ‘Abd Al-Mun’em Ahmad ‘Abd Al-Rahman, Hafed Al-Amani, Fadlallah Al-‘Arabi, Al-Sanussi Al-Bashari, Ayman Al-Busufi, Ashraf Al-Fazzani, ‘Abd Al-Wahab Al-Katshi and Khaled Al-Mansuri, were injured and taken to hospital for treatment. Most of them received bullet wounds and are reportedly still be in a serious condition.

Abdallah Senoussi, a top security official, reportedly told the detainees to reveal the name of the detainee who had informed the media about the incident by the end of 9 October, telling them that all detainees would be attacked if they failed to do so.

Without in any way implying any conclusion as to the facts of the case, we urge your Excellency’s Government to take all necessary measures to protect the physical and mental integrity of all the prisoners and guarantee that the practices of law-enforcement officials inside Abu Salim prison are consistent with international human rights standards, such as the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

Principle 4 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Officials, provides that, “Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms.” Furthermore, Principle 5 provides that, “Whenever the use of force and firearms is unavoidable law enforcement officials shall, (a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate object to be achieved; (b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life; (c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment and (d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are notified at the earliest possible moment.” (Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990).

Concerning the ultimatum given to the prisoners to reveal the name of the detainee who “informed the media” of the incidents in Abu Salim prison, we would like to stress that each Government has the obligation to protect the right to physical and mental integrity of all persons. This right is set forth inter alia in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.We would also like to draw your Government’s attention to paragraph 8 of Resolution 2005/39 of the Commission on Human Rights. Paragraph 8 reminds Governments that, as described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture, which your Government acceded to in 1989, intimidation and coercion, including serious and credible threats, as well as death threats, (…) can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or to torture.

Furthermore, we would also like to appeal to your Excellency’s Government to ensure that all deaths that occurred in connection with the incidents in the Abu Salim prison on 4 October 2006 are promptly, independently and thoroughly investigated in accordance with the United Nations Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. This principle was reiterated by the 61st Commission on Human Rights in Resolution 2005/34 on “Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” (OP 4), stating that all States have “the obligation (…) to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”. The Commission added that this obligation includes the obligation “to identify and bring to justice those responsible, (…) to grant adequate compensation within a reasonable time to the victims or their families and to adopt all necessary measures, including legal and judicial measures, in order to (…) prevent the recurrence of such executions”.

It is our responsibility under the mandate provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights and extended by the Human Rights Council to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since we are expected to report on this case to the Human Rights Council, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

1. Are the facts alleged above accurate? If not so, please describe the investigations carried out to ascertain that the allegations are ill-founded.

2. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical examinations, and judicial or other inquiries carried out in relation to the death of Mr. Hafed Mansur Al-Zwai and the prisoners that were injured during the incidents in Abu Salim prison.

3. Please indicate whether compensation has been provided to the families of the victims

Response of the Government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya dated 13 November 2006

Revolt by a number of prisoners at the Abu Salim Reform and Rehabilitation Institute.

The Department of Public Prosecutions launched an investigation into the incidents that occurred at the Abu Salim Reform and Rehabilitation Institute on Wednesday, 4 October 2006, where a number of prisoners and detainees staged a revolt. The Department of Public Prosecutions took all the steps required by law, questioning security personnel and guards of the officer class and other ranks. It also questioned inmates who were not involved in the incident. The investigation revealed that several detainees being held at the Institute while on trial had returned from a session at which the court had decided to defer consideration of their case until a later date, at the request of the defence. When they entered the Institute, they occupied a number of administrative offices and threatened to set fire to them. At the same time, they incited the other prisoners to join them and moved towards the main entrance which they proceeded to occupy, jeopardizing the security and safety of the Institute as well as the safety of prisoners, guards and prison staff. The officer in charge of the Institute went to the men to try to restore calm and convince them to return to their cells. They attempted to assault him and a number of police guards, several of whom were injured. The management had to call the General Security Department for reinforcements. After a major effort, the General Security contingent and a group of guards managed to get back into the Institute. At this point, the prisoners started to pelt the police with stones and pieces of iron that they had stolen from the site of the company carrying out maintenance work at the Institute. A number of men climbed the walls and windows in a bid to escape, compelling the guards on the roofs and at the main entrances to discharge their weapons in order to gain control of the situation. As a result, three prisoners received injuries of different kinds and were taken to hospital. The General Security officers who had been called in to help with the protection of the Institute made a great effort to force the prisoners back into their cells. Direct clashes between the police and the prisoners ensued, with the police being bombarded with iron pieces, screwdrivers and water pipes. In the clashes, eight policemen were injured, two of them slightly and the six others with various injuries, for which they were hospitalized. The names of these persons are:

1. Muhi al-Din Ashur al-Sabuni, second lieutenant, General Department of General Security

2. Mohammed Izz al-Din Salim bin Farj, policeman, General Department of General Security

4. Mohammed Bashir Ghayth Hamid, policeman, General Department of General Security

After the prisoners had returned to their cells, one person was found lying on the floor. Upon examination, he was found to be dead.

The investigation showed that the dead prisoner, Hafiz Mansur al-Zawi, had been imprisoned in connection with case No. 120/98. The pathologist’s report indicated that the cause of death was a single injury sustained when the head of the deceased had collided with a body, cracking the skull and precipitating a fatal haemorrhage. The report ruled out a gunshot wound as the cause of death. The relatives of the deceased were notified of the death and of the conclusions of the medical report and the Department of Public Prosecutions ordered that the body be released to the family for burial.

These persons sustained various injuries and were taken to hospital for treatment. The Department of Public Prosecutions took their statements.

The investigation will continue until the testimony of prisoners associated with, or involved in the incident, and that of some of the Institute’s personnel has been heard. The medical report has been annexed to the case file.

The persons who carried out these acts are known Islamic extremists who were arrested and investigated in the course of recent years. They were charged with belonging to a proscribed organization, carrying out acts of murder, sabotage and terrorism, stealing weapons, forging passports and documents, and killing foreigners. They were originally tried before the People’s Court, but when that Court was abolished, pursuant to Act No. 7/2006, their case was transferred to the Criminal Court, a court which specializes in dealing with terrorist crimes, organized killings and sabotage and which was established by the Judicial Authority Act No. 51/1976. The Court held several sessions in 2005-2006. The Prosecutor-General personally oversaw the conduct of the investigation and the application of due process. He entrusted Mohammed Abd al-Wahhab Salim, Chief of the Department of Public Prosecutions for southern Tripoli, with the investigation.

Violation alleged: Disappearance; Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

The Special Rapporteur looks forward to receiving a response concerning these allegations.

I would like to draw the attention of your Government to information I have received concerning the disappearance of Ali Omar Al Gamoudi, Aissa Bachir Al Magrahi and Aboubekr Khelifa Al Rabbah from the Abou Slim prison.

The three men were sentenced to death on 21 December 2004 and were detained since then at the Abou Slim prison. According to the information received, they initiated a hunger strike after the security forces intervened inside the prison on 4 October 2006, which resulted in one casualty and 9 wounded among the detainees (incident for which I sent a communication to your Excellency’s Government on 31 October 2006).

The three men were reportedly taken away by security forces on 23 October 2006 to an unknown destination. To date, their families ignore their whereabouts as they have not been transferred to any other place of detention. Fears have been expressed that they might have been executed in retaliation for their involvement in the hunger strike.

Without wishing to prejudge the accuracy or otherwise of the facts reported, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that a person’s due process rights and the right to be treated humanely do not come to an end with the imposition of the death sentence. A lack of transparency regarding the post-conviction process and timetable for execution implicates two sets of rights. The first is that the failure to provide notice to the accused of the timing of his execution may undermine due process rights. Most notably, in addition to “the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal” (ICCPR Article 14(5) the death row prisoner has “the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence” (ICCPR Article 6(4)). The uncertainty and seclusion inflicted by opaque processes compromise this right. In addition, and regardless of the actual due process consequences, to conceal from someone the facts of their preordained fate will constitute inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Moreover, for the prisoner and for his or her family a lack of transparency in what is already a harrowing experience — waiting for one’s execution — can result in “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” within the meaning of Article 7 of the ICCPR. The views of the Human Rights Committee in a recent decision that responded to an individual complaint illustrate this matter. The Human Rights Committee found that “[t]he complete secrecy surrounding the date of execution, and the place of burial and the refusal to hand over the body for burial have the effect of intimidating or punishing families by intentionally leaving them in a state of uncertainty and mental distress.” This amounted to inhuman treatment in violation of Article 7 of the ICCPR (Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 886/1999: Belarus, para. 10.2, 77th Sess., April 28, 2003, CCPR/C/77/D/886/1999).

In view of the urgency of the matter, I therefore urge your Excellency’s Government to take all measures to guarantee that the rights under international law of Ali Omar Al Gamoudi, Aissa Bachir Al Magrahi and Aboubekr Khelifa Al Rabbah are respected.

I would also appreciate if your Excellency’s Government could provide full information relating to the detainees’ whereabouts.

Correspondence from 2006

The record of correspondence for 2006 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1.

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: Killing of Journalist Daif al-Ghazal al-Shuhaibi

Violation alleged: Death due to attacks or killings by security forces

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male (journalist)

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Allegation letter sent on 10 June 2005 with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression

Allegation sent concerning Daif al-Ghazal al-Shuhaibi, 31, a journalist who wrote for the UK-based newspaper Libya Today, and member of the Journalists and Editors' Syndicate in Libya.

According to information received, on 2 June 2005 his dead body was found in Kanfouda, in the eastern city of Benghazi. The autopsy report referred to extensive signs of torture and a gunshot to the head; most of his fingers were severed and his body was covered with bruises and stab wounds. Daif al-Ghazal al-Shuhaibi had been reported missing since midnight 21 May 2005 when he was kidnapped by two armed men claiming to be state security officers.� His friend, who was with him when the men arrested Daif al-Ghazal al-Shuhaibi, was left unharmed.

The authorities are conducting investigations. Security officers have been questioned by the Benghazi Prosecutor�s Office; they deny having arrested Mr. Daif al-Ghazal al-Shuhaibi. Several other people are being questioned.

According to report received, Daif al-Ghazal al-Shuhaibi had published articles on Libya Today which were very critical of Libya�s Governing Party the Movement of Revolutionary Committee (MRC), particularly an article he published on 16 May 2005, where he reiterated that he had documents concerning corruption in Libya, which documents he would soon be making public. Moreover, he had worked with the MRC for ten years; he had also worked for the MRC-controlled newspaper, Al-Zahf Al-Akhdar (The Green March) for four years before leaving because of what he believed was widespread corruption within the MRC. In 2004 Daif al-Ghazal al-Shuhaibi had issued an appeal to intellectuals in Libya to form a civil society committee against corruption; this never materialised.

Concern is expressed that the killing of Daif al-Ghazal al-Shuhaibi could have been directly connected to his work as a journalist and to the manifestation of his right to freedom of opinion and expression, especially since he reported having received many threats following the publication of his article on 16 May 2005.

Correspondence from 2005

The record of correspondence for 2005 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1.

Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal, sent with the Special Rapporteur on torture, 7 May 2004, Kristiana Malinova Valcheva (f), Nasya Stojcheva Nenova (f), Valentina Manolova Siropulo (f), Valya Georgieva Chervenyashka (f) and Snezhanka Ivanova Dimitrova (f), five Bulgarian health professionals, and Ashraf Ahmad Jum'a, a Palestinian doctor, were reportedly arrested in December 1998 and accused of deliberately infecting 426 children with the HIV virus while working in al-Fateh Children's Hospital in Benghazi. It is alleged that for the first 15 months of detention no information was disclosed on the reason for their arrest and that the first hearing was held in February 2000 without the Bulgarian Embassy being informed. They have reportedly been sentenced to death by firing squad by the Benghazi Criminal Court on 6 May 2004. They are reportedly now entitled to appeal against their sentences before the Supreme Court. The execution of the death sentences reportedly requires the approval of the Supreme Council of Judicial Bodies, the country's highest judicial body. In the same trial, Zdravko Marinov Georgiev, a sixth Bulgarian defendant, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment and nine Libyan doctors were allegedly acquitted. It is alleged that the foreign medical professionals� confessions, which they later retracted, were extracted through torture. According to the information received, on the basis of the allegations of torture, eight members of the security forces, a doctor and a translator were charged in connection with the torture. They reportedly faced trial alongside the above-named health professionals before the same criminal court in Benghazi. However, on 6 May 2004 the Benghazi Criminal Court eventually pronounced that it was not competent to examine their cases. It is not clear whether those charged in connection with the torture of the health professionals will be tried before another court or whether the charges against them will not be heard before a court of law.

Government reply: Response dated 10 December 2004: Ashraf Ahmad Jum�a, Kristiana Malinova Valcheva, Nasya Stojcheva Nenova, Valentina Manolova Siropulo, Valya Georgieva Chervenyashka and Snezhanka Ivanova Dimitrova were tried before the Benghazi Criminal Court for causing the spread of an infectious disease by injecting 393 children with lethal substance which led to the deaths of 23 children. According to the Government, �it makes no sense to assert that the charges against them did not refer to the most serious crimes� (�). �The least one can say about this crime is that it is a crime of genocide which contravenes all international treaties, conventions and legal norms, as well as humanitarian principles.� According to the Government �the trial of the accused persons before the Benghazi Criminal Court lasted 10 months, which is not a period short enough to warrant it being characterized as a summary or an arbitrary trial. The accused persons were afforded all the safeguards provided for in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the relevant United Nations resolutions to ensure the right to a fair trial: the right to a defence, the right to the services of an interpreter and the right to call expert witnesses. The trial was conducted in public in the presence of journalists, diplomatic and consular staff and members of non-governmental organizations. The accused persons were represented in court both by a Libyan lawyer and a Bulgarian lawyer� (�) �It is not acceptable to use the words summary or arbitrary to describe the trial or the verdict. The trial was held in public and in the presence of foreign observers and politicians. The process was completely transparent and afforded all the safeguards needed to ensure a fair trial�. The government added that the verdict is not final and that it has to be endorsed by the Supreme Court. As to the allegations of confessions extracted under torture, the Department of Public Prosecutions intends to refer the police officers to the Tripoli Criminal Court since it has competence for hearing the case against them.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply.

Correspondence from 2004

The record of correspondence for 2004 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2004/7/Add.1.

On 30 July 2003, the Special Rapporteur and the Special Rapporteur on torture sent an appeal to the Government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in connection with the situation of seven Eritrean nationals, Zacharias Michael Belay, Misghina Siyoum, Mesfin, Rezene, Yonas, Michael and Abel, who were allegedly detained in Libya and were reported to be at imminent risk of being forcibly returned to Eritrea where they could face torture, secret and incommunicado detention, as well as possible extrajudicial execution.The men were reportedly military conscripts aged in their 20s who had deserted from the army because of the alleged indefinite extension of their military service. They reportedly escaped to the Sudan in 2002 and travelled to Libya, hoping to reach a country of asylum in Europe. On 11 August 2002, they were allegedly arrested by the Libyan authorities as they were attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea. They were reportedly convicted of illegal entry and sentenced to three months� imprisonment. According to the information received, the punishment for deserters in Eritrea could be death, although it was also alleged that deserters were often detained and tortured, then forced to resume their military service. It is also alleged that between 30 September and 3 October 2002, about other 220 returned Eritrean, believed to have been mainly conscript army deserters and evaders, were allegedly held in incommunicado detention in Eritrea. In light of reports of allegations of torture and incommunicado detention of other deserters in Eritrea, fears were expressed that the seven men named above may be subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment if they were deported to Eritrea and that their lives could be in danger.

Correspondence from 2003

The record of correspondence for 2003 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2003/Add.1.

On 25 February 2002, the Special Rapporteur sent un urgent appeal to the Government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya regarding Salem Abu Hanak and Abdullah Ahmed Izzedin, who were reportedly sentenced to death by a People's Court in Tripoli on 16 February 2002 following an unfair trial. Mr. Hanak, head of the Chemistry Department at the Faculty of Science of the University of Qar Younes in Benghazi at the time of his arrest, and Mr. Izzedin, lecturer at the Engineering Faculty of Tripoli at the time of his arrest, were among 152 professionals and students arrested in and after June 1998 on suspicion of supporting or sympathizing with the banned Libyan Islamic group, al-Jama'a al-Islamiya al-Libiya, also known as the Muslim Brothers, al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin. It is said that this group is not known to have used or advocated violence. Reportedly, Mr. Hanak and Mr. Izzedin were held in incommunicado detention following their arrests, on 5 June 1998 and 7 June 1998 respectively, until the opening of their trial in March 2001. During this time, their whereabouts allegedly remained unknown and they were deprived of the right to legal counsel. According to the information received, their trial failed to conform to international standards for a fair trial. All the hearings of their cases by the People's Court, Mahkamat al-Sha'b, were reportedly held behind closed doors in a military compound. Finally, it is alleged that at the second session on 29 April 2001, the men's chosen lawyers were denied access to the court and the judge appointed clerks from within the People�s Lawyers� Office, Maktab al-Muhama al-Sha'biyya, to represent them.

On 4 October 2002, the Special Rapporteur, jointly with the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an urgent appeal relating to Mohamed Massaud Izbeda, Hussein Seif Salem Aljadik, Abdelwahhab Seif Salem Aljadik, Abdallah Mohamed Massaud Izbeda, Belgasim Mohamed Massaud Izbeda and Rajab Mohamed Massaud Izbeda. According to the information received, on 1 September 2002, the Government released 62 prisoners allegedly detained on political grounds. On 5 September 2002, Mohamed Massaud. Izbeda, whose son, Abdallah Mohamed Massaud Izbeda, had not been released, reportedly went to the headquarters (almathaba) of the Revolutionary Committee of Beni-Ouleed to find out about the whereabouts of his son. Mohamed Massaud Izbeda was reportedly kept at the headquarters where he was allegedly physically assaulted by members of the Revolutionary Committee. It is reported that he was released later that afternoon, and went home where he died during the night, allegedly as a direct consequence of the treatment he was subjected to. On 6 September, his family held his funeral in the municipal cemetery of the town of Beni-Ouleed. The following day, members of the Revolutionary Committee reportedly went to the family of the deceased and told them to remove the corpse from the cemetery and to "throw it outside the administrative borders of Beni-Ouleed." When the family refused, the officials reportedly threatened to "throw it in the sea". As the members of the Revolutionary Committee approached the cemetery, purportedly to carry out this threat, they reportedly clashed with protesters, four of whom were arrested, namely Hussein Seif Salem Aljadik, his brother Abdelwahhab Seif Salem Aljadik, Belgasim Mohamed Massaud Izbeida and his brother Rajab Mohamed Massaud Izbeida, and taken to the mathaba (prison). On 13 September, the Aljadik family was reportedly informed that Hussein Seif Salem Aljadik had died in prison, allegedly as a result of treatment he was subjected to while in detention. Their second son, Abdelwahhab, who was reportedly released the same day, went back home in a special car as he was severely injured as a result of the treatment he was allegedly subjected to. He is said to have broken legs and arms, he reportedly eats with difficulty and is unable to use the bathroom without assistance. His life was allegedly in danger unless he was given emergency medical assistance. Rajab Mohamed Massaud and Belgasim Mohamed Massaud Izbeida remain in prison and their whereabouts are unknown. Fears were expressed that they might be at risk of torture or arbitrary execution.

Correspondence from 1983-2002

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has been corresponding with Governments regarding alleged violations since the mandate was established over two decades ago. While the Project on Extrajudicial Executions is making efforts to provide easily browsed versions of as many years as possible, much of the earlier correspondence is available only in the PDF versions of reports from 1983 to the present.

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: Visits & Communications

Correspondence from 2007