Torture in Bahrain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The corpse of Nuh Al Nuh showing injuries allegedly due to torture by Bahraini security officials in July 1998.

Torture was endemic in the period 1974 to 1999, during the time that the State Security Act 1974 was in effect, especially during the 1990s Intifada (as documented several international human rights organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch). Along with political reforms, King Hamad in 2001 scrapped the notorious State Security Act 1974 which had allowed many of the abuses to take place.

The royally appointed prime minister, Shaikh Khalifah ibn Sulman al-Khalifah (uncle of the present King), was head of government during all the period that the alleged torture took place and continues in his office to the present day.

The issue of immunity over past violations has remained a point of concern. In 2001, the King pardoned all those involved in political violence in the 1990s freeing hundreds of prisoners. Following 2001's general amnesty, in 2002 the King issued Royal Decree 56, which clarified that amnesty is also granted to all state security officers who may have committed human rights abuses prior to 2001. As a result, the Public prosecutor of Bahrain has refused to accept any complaints of torture lodged against security officials, and no individuals have yet been charged or tried by the state, despite pleas by international human rights groups. Most of the officers have continued their employment and some have been promoted to higher government positions.

Among the individuals alleged to have committed, or overseen, the torture are: Ian Henderson, Adel Flaifel, Khalid Al Wazzan, Abdulaziz Ateyatallah Al-Khalifa, Alistair Bain McNutt.

1 Period of the State Security Act
2 End of the State Security Law and a new ruler
3 The Amnesty Decree
4 List of individuals killed under torture in Bahrain
5 Footnotes
6 See also
7 External links

[edit] Period of the State Security Act

In July 1995, 16-year-old student Said Al-Iskafi, was taken into custody by the State Security Intelligence agency. His corpse was returned to the family ten days later bearing signs of torture.

Torture was endemic in Bahrain between 1974 and 1999, when the State Security Act 1974^[1] was in force, but prior to the accession of King Hamad. The State Security Act, formally scrapped in 2001, contained measures permitting the government to arrest and imprison individuals without trial for a period of up to three years for crimes relating to state security. Other measures relating to the 1974 Act were introduced, (namely the establishment of State Security Courts) which added to the conditions conducive to the practice of torture.

Torture appears to have been most prevalent during the 1990s Uprising, between 1994 and 1997 when civilians sought the return of the liberal Constitution of 1973 and their Parliament by presenting two public petitions to the Emir.^[2] Individuals who were connected to this petition were deemed to be acting against the regime and were subsequently detained under the State Security Laws, subjected to torture and a number were forced into exile.^[3] See also: History of Bahrain.

Bahrain’s past track record for gross violations of human rights, in particular torture has been frequently raised in a variety of UN fora; it was one of the countries subjected to the 1503 procedure^[4] and has been the subject of a resolution by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities^[5] as well as urgent appeals from the Special Rapporteur on Torture and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.^[6] The Special Rapporteur summed up the practice of torture during this period in his 1997 report to the UN Human Rights Commission:

“most persons arrested for political reasons in Bahrain were held incommunicado, a condition of detention conducive to torture. The Security and Intelligence Service (SIS) and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) were alleged frequently to conduct interrogation of such detainees under torture. The practice of torture by these agencies was said to be undertaken with impunity, with no known cases of officials having been prosecuted for acts of torture or other ill-treatment. In cases heard before the State Security Court, defendants were reportedly convicted solely on the basis of uncorroborated confessions made to political or security officials or on the testimony of such officials that confessions had been made. Although defendants often alleged that their "confessions" had been extracted under torture, impartial investigations of such claims were reportedly never ordered by the court. In addition, medical examinations of defendants were rarely ordered by the court, unless the defendant displayed obvious signs of injury. Such outward displays of injury were said to be uncommon, since torture victims were usually brought to trial well after their injuries had healed.

In addition to its use as a means to extract a "confession", torture was also reportedly administered to force detainees to sign statements pledging to renounce their political affiliation, to desist from future anti-government activity, to coerce the victim into reporting on the activities of others, to inflict punishment and to instil fear in political opponents. The methods of torture reported include: falaqa (beatings on the soles of the feet); severe beatings, sometimes with hose-pipes; suspension of the limbs in contorted positions accompanied by blows to the body; enforced prolonged standing; sleep deprivation; preventing victims from relieving themselves; immersion in water to the point of near drowning; burnings with cigarettes; piercing the skin with a drill; sexual assault, including the insertion of objects into the penis or anus; threats of execution or of harm to family members; and placing detainees suffering from sickle cell anaemia (said to be prevalent in the country) in air-conditioned rooms in the winter, which can lead to injury to internal organs.”^[7]

[edit] End of the State Security Law and a new ruler

Colonel Ian Henderson in a television interview in 1964, after being deported from Kenya. Henderson served as the head of the secret police in Bahrain during the period when most of the torture occurred. International human rights bodies have called for his prosecution, but this has been resisted by the Bahrain government by issuing Royal Decree 56.

Since, the Emir, Sheikh Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa succeeded his father, Sheikh Isa Bin Sulman Al Khalifa in 1999, the occurrence of torture has apparently dramatically dropped. Only isolated incidents have been reported and the conditions of detention have improved.^[8] This can be attributed to the introduction of some crucial reforms.^[9] In October 2001, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited Bahrain for the first time. Although it confirmed the condemnatory decisions and opinions it had previously made in relation to the state security laws with further investigations, it congratulated Bahrain on “the decisive scale and scope of the reforms that have been undertaken and the accompanying acts of clemency” following the repeal of the State Security laws and the release of political prisoners.^[10] It viewed the repeal of the state security laws “amount to a major political shift in favour of human rights”.^[11] However it also recognised that : “Not all the instruments currently in force are flawed, the problem lies rather in their practical application”.^[12] Much remains in the will of the relevant authorities to continue with the reform process and to ensure that existing safeguards are effectively implemented in practice.

[edit] The Amnesty Decree

Mohammed Gholoom (above) was one of the first fatal victims of the State Security Law. Gholoom died in the custody of the Bahrain security police on December 2 1976, followed by the similar death of Saeed Al-Uwainati ten days later.

The obligation on the state to provide an effective remedy and the needs of the torture survivors to receive compensation and other forms of reparation was stressed by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.^[13] The views of civil society have also placed emphasis on the need for effective and enforceable remedies for torture survivors: “that mainstream opinion puts the highest priority on victims’ right to compensation inter alia for torture, and in particular to the medical care with specific physical and psychological attention.^[14]

However, to date, no alleged perpetrator has been tried for torture or ill treatment even though the practice of torture in Bahrain during the 1980s and 1990s has been well documented.^[15] There have been reports of one case in 2001 where an individual who suffered torture while in police custody was personally compensated by the Emir,^[16] and in November 2002, 8 torture victims lodged complaints relating to their treatment with the Directorate of Public Prosecutions for an effective investigation,^[17] and requesting that charges be laid against one of the alleged perpetrators, Adel Felaifel, who was already being investigated on relation to fraud and embezzlement charges. There have also been numerous demonstrations and calls from the public for such a prosecution to be initiated. Additionally, more than 30,000 people were reported to have petitioned the King to repeal Decree No. 56. At the time of writing, no known investigation has been opened in relation to these cases.

The calls for an investigation with a view to prosecuting such crimes has been met with stiff opposition from the Government. Decree 56 of 2002, which purports to grant a blanket amnesty for any case (civil or criminal) lodged by persons accused of or convicted of “offences that endangered or pose a threat to state/national security” which fell within the jurisdiction of the State Security Court, effectively extends Decree 10/2001, the general amnesty of February 2001, to cover human rights violations committed by government and security officials as well as offences by political opponents of the government.^[18] It appears to be in direct contravention with the provision in article 89 of the Penal Code that only allows amnesty laws which do “not affect third party rights,” and counters the prohibition of torture in the National Charter which provides that:

“No person shall in any way be subjected to any kind of physical or moral torture, inhumane, humiliating indignant treatment… Law ensures punishment of those who commit an offence of torture, a physically or psychologically harmful act”.^[19]

Sections of this article have been taken from the Submission Of THE REDRESS TRUST To The House of Lords meeting On Bahrain, Aug 17 2004

[edit] List of individuals killed under torture in Bahrain

Dr. Hashim al-Alawi, a pediatrician by career, was arrested by Bahrain authorities in September 1986 accused of distributing anti- government leaflets. Five weeks later Dr. Alawi's family was told that he had "committed suicide" in detention. No investigation took place.

The table below shows the names of Bahrainis who are thought to have died under torture of state security officers. The list has been compiled from reports documented by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Year of death	Name	Occupation
1976	Saeed Al-Uwainati	Journalist
1976	Mohammed Gholoom	Medical doctor
1980	Jamil Ali Mohsin Al-Ali
1980	Karim Al-Habshi
1981	Mohammed Hassan Madan
1981	Sheikh Jamal Al-Asfoor	Cleric
1986	Radhi Mahdi Ibrahim
1986	Dr Hashim Isma'il al-'Alawi	Pediatrician
1994	Haj Mirza Ali
1995	Hamid Qasim	Student
1995	Nidal Habib Al-Nashabah	Student
1995	Hussain Qambar
1995	Said Abd al-Rasul al-Eskafi	Student
1996	al-Sayyid 'Ali al-Sayyid Amin al-'Alawi
1997	'Abd al-Zahra' Ibrahim 'Abdullah
1997	Shaikh 'Ali Mirza al-Nakkas	Cleric
1998	Nuh Khalil Abdullah Al Nuh

[edit] Footnotes

↑ This led the government to dissolve the assembly in order to enact the State Security Laws. In essence this was the root cause of human rights violations within Bahrain during the last 20 or so years. US Department of State, Bahrain Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2001 supra, p. 1; Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Foreign Policy: Regional Country Profiles – Bahrain, p. 2; Amnesty International report: “Bahrain Violations of Human Rights” 9 May 1991, p. 4.
↑ Hansard 3 June 1997, Motion concerning Bahrain: question posed by George Gallaway and responded to by Derek Fatchett, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, pp. 1, 3; HRW: ‘Routine Abuse, Routine Denial Civil Rights and the Political Crisis in Bahrain’, p. 29.
↑ US Department of State, Bahrain Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2001; Amnesty International report: “Bahrain Violations of Human Rights” p. 3; US Department of State, Bahrain Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996, p. 3.
↑ From 1991 to 1993, 47th-49th session, see Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, States examined under the 1503 procedure by the Commission on Human Rights (as up to 2003).
↑ Situation of human rights in Bahrain, Sub-commission resolution 1997/2, adopted at the 24th meeting, 21 August 1997, in which the Sub-Commission noted “the information concerning a serious deterioration of the human rights situation in Bahrain, including discrimination against the Shi’a population, extrajudicial killings, persistent use of torture in Bahraini prisons on a large scale as well as the abuse of women and children who are detained, and arbitrary detention without trial or access by detainees to legal advice” and expressed “its deep concern about the alleged gross and systematic violations of human rights in Bahrain.”
↑ See e.g. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/35, 9 January 1996, para.33; UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/38, 24 December 1997, para.24 and Opinion No.15/1997 of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/44/Add.1, 3 November 1998.
↑ Fifty-third session, Item 8(a) of the provisional agenda UN Doc. E/CN.4/1997/7, 10 January 1997, para 26; see also US Department of State, Bahrain Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2001, p. 1; Amnesty International report: “Bahrain Violations of Human Rights” Summary, p. 2; and Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – Visit to Bahrain, para 90 according to which prisons are no longer overcrowded and conditions of detention are satisfactory. UN Doc.E/CN.4/2002/77/Add.2.
↑ US Department of State, Bahrain Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2001, and Working group on arbitrary detention, para 90.
↑ The most significant change has been the repeal of the State Security Law. This has included the abolition in February 2001 of the State Security Court which held secret trials with few procedural guarantees. In addition to this, the Emir granted an amnesty to all political prisoners held under the State Security laws other than life-threatening offences pursuant to articles 333 and 336 of the Criminal Code. This resulted in the release of a large number of detainees and the return of many Bahrainis living in exile and the cancellation of international search warrants. For further information on reforms, see, REDRESS. Reparation for Torture: A Survey of Law and Practice in 30 Selected Countries (Bahrain Country Report), May 2003, available at: [20].
↑ See Report of Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in particular paras. 9 to 13.
↑ Ibid para. 18.
↑ para. 56.
↑ para 28.
↑ Ibid, para 24.
↑ US State Department Report 2001.
↑ US State Department Report 2001.
↑ Open letter to the Ambassador of Bahrain dated 17 December 2002 from REDRESS, OMCT, APT FiACAT and IRCT.
↑ Decree 56 provides that: “No lawsuit related to or result from crimes that were subject to general clemency will be heard in front of any judicial panel irrespective of the plaintiff’s person or position and the accused person, whether he was civilian, a civil employee, or a military officer who was directly involved in the crime or was a partner to the crime that occurred during the period the preceded the issuance of this decree.”
↑ Second – Protection of individual freedoms and equality of Chapter 1 Basic principles of society of the National Charter (para 2).