Media reports and statements issued by certain international organizations addressed the decision passed by the Court of Cassation in the hearing of 7th January 2013 in the case known as the “Alliance for the Republic”. Those reports contained erroneous information which could lead to questioning the integrity and independence of the Judiciary in the Kingdom of Bahrain. They also included comments on the decision and questioning court proceedings, which is contradictory to documented evidence. In addition, those reports contained information which conflict with facts and evidence as contained in the case file, particularly in relation to charges for which the sentences were passed, the evidence on which the Court based its decision, and the procedures adopted by the Court to protect the rights of the accused during trial.
In order to clarify all facts and correct the erroneous information as reported, Public Prosecution is keen to clarify certain facts related to the course of Court of Cassation proceedings, the charges considered by the Court, and the grounds on which the decision of the Court of Appeals was based.
On the charges considered by the Court, firstly it must be emphasized that the decision of the Court of Appeals on 4th August 2012 did not include any charges against any of the accused related to freedom of expression which were all dropped by the Public Prosecution against all the accused. Moreover, the Court of Cassation, in its decision of 7th January 2013, did not address those charges, and limited its deliberations and decision to the above mentioned crimes.
Henceforth, the Court’s deliberations were confined to accusations related to the formation of a group in violation of the provisions of the Law, the purpose of which was to overturn the Country’s Constitution, topple its political regime, disrupt the application of laws, prevent State’s institutions and public authorities from performing their functions, impair private liberties of citizens, undermine national unity, attempt to overturn the State’s Constitution and topple its monarchy by the use of force.
The Court heard evidence to its satisfaction when considering those charges, that following the arrests of the terrorist cell known as the Twenty-Five, security forces discovered that one of the accused – namely the person in charge of the unauthorized so-called “Al Wafa Islamic Party” – had formed a group in violation of the provisions of the Law, the purpose of which was to overthrow the Kingdom’s Government, and disrupt the application of the Constitution and Laws in coordination with the leaders of the so-called “Haq Movement”, “Bahrain Islamic Freedom Movement”, and “Salvation Movement”, who are residents of London. They all agreed to form the so-called “Alliance for the Republic”, and laid its ideological principles and foundations, intending to change the Country’s Constitution and basic system of government which was approved by the people. They aimed to achieve that by preventing the Government and public institutions and authorities from functioning. They used the home of one of them as headquarters for the meeting of the members of this Group. Others provided financial and material aid as required to carry out the Group’s activities. Some of them possessed printed material calling for its support.
It was also proven to the Court that all of the accused had participated in the activities of that Group, and agreed among themselves to continue their illegal activity, taking advantage of the events that the Arab Region was witnessing in early 2011. For that purpose, they held many meetings with members of the Group in Bahrain, and consulted and communicated with elements residing in London, as well as with some foreign organizations, and in particular Hezbollah of Lebanon to coordinate with them and obtain their support of the activity of the Group in preparation for the implementation of their plot. Some of the accused took advantage of the calls made over the Internet and by SMS messages to set the date of 14th February, which coincides with the Kingdom’s celebrations of the National Action Charter day, to advance certain living, political and social demands, as part of the Group’s plot. They called for demonstrations and protests to be simultaneously held on that day in many areas of the Kingdom. They also called for the formation of action groups in each of the areas, and coordinated between them. They used houses of worship, including Ma’tams and Husseiniyats (religious event halls), to incite disturbances, riots, vandalism and instability in the Country to further the Group’s plot aimed at overthrowing the Government and overturning the Constitution by illegal means. Some of them led those demonstrations at the areas of their residence, and as aforementioned, they used their homes as headquarters for the meetings of the so-called “Alliance for the Republic”.
Moreover, the Court also reached a conclusion that the accused had selected the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Roundabout as a rally location for the demonstrators to show the popular density, similar to what some other Arab countries, such as Egypt and Tunis, had witnessed. Those groups indeed arrived to the Roundabout, which was evacuated later on. The idea of national dialogue was presented, allowing the demonstrators to once again return to the Roundabout; moreover, the accused in the case of the terrorist cell, four of whom are defendants in this case were all released. However, the accused considered that such an act on the part of the Government would foil their plot, which was in the stage of escalation. Therefore, they all worked hard together to undermine the dialogue by calling for the overthrow of the Government, and by committing hostile acts, including assaults on, and resistance to, the authorities. They endeavored to impede the State’s institutions in order to escalate events and spread chaos. The Court also ascertained that they the accused had at the time met at the home of one of them, and deliberated means of bringing down the government. They concluded that it was necessary to install a republican system in the Country, and to escalate their actions by violence, including attacks on persons, public security personnel, public property, road blocks, and strikes in the public and private sectors, until the time is right to topple the government. They also attacked Sunni houses of worship. They obstructed health and educational institutions, calling for disobedience and using force against anyone who did not comply with their demands; the demonstrators killed and kidnapped a number of security forces personnel; they also targeted Asian expatriate workers; all in the name of the “Alliance for the Republic”.
The Court was also convinced that the first defendant had issued instructions to the second defendant to stay in London and wait for the right opportunity to return to Bahrain. He then assigned to him and to two other defendants to communicate with officials of Hezbollah of Lebanon to ask for their support and assistance in carrying out the Group’s plot aimed at toppling the Government of the Kingdom. Thus, the second defendant communicated with Hezbollah to coordinate those actions relying on his relationship and the relationships of the first, third and fifteenth defendants with Hezbollah’s representative in London. Relevant arrangements were made, and Hezbollah purchased an airline ticket at its own expense. The second defendant travelled to Lebanon where he met Hezbollah’s Secretary General and asked him to provide support and assistance to the Group to achieve its purposes. He also received from him in this respect a directive to work towards changing the system of government in Bahrain. Hezbollah’s Secretary General also expressed the willingness of Hezbollah to provide all assistance and support. In addition, Hezbollah is a politically active organization with religious affiliations. It is an armed party connected to Iran and used by Iran to achieve its political aims. While six of the defendants had contacts with Hezbollah officials, and the first defendant was in constant communication with Hezbollah’s representative in London, the sixth defendant repeatedly visited Iran and met certain religious leaders, relaying news and information to them on the situation in Bahrain. He then received directives to change the system of government in the Kingdom. The remaining members of the Group had full knowledge of the communications of their aforementioned colleagues in the aforementioned manner for Iran’s interests. They prepared themselves and relied in the funding of the Group on what some of its members were receiving out of the Khmus (one-fifth), in addition to the donations which were received by the Group.
On the evidence on which the Court of Appeals based its sentencing of the accused, Case file included the testimonies of ten witnesses, all of whom confirmed that the accused had committed the crimes of which they are accused, in addition to a large number of physical evidence found in the possession of the accused, namely audio and -visual recordings, publications, reports and documents containing information irrefutably proving the charges made against them. On the confessions made by the accused before investigating bodies, the Court was not satisfied with the validity of those confessions, with the exception of confessions made by two of the defendants, where case file did not contain any evidence showing that they were subjected to torture or any form of ill-treatment, as shown in the medical examiner’s report issued by Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) team of forensic medical examiners. This convinced the Court that the confessions they gave to investigative bodies were totally voluntary after they were informed of the charges made against them.
On the actions taken by the Court to provide guarantees and protect the rights of the defendants during all hearings, the Court of Appeals was keen on protecting all the rights of the accused, including the right to an attorney, and to consulting with the attorney continuously in total confidence, and the right to call defense witnesses. The Court also accepted all the requests made by the defense attorneys in accordance with the Law, including:
During the hearing of 8th May 2012, defense attorneys for two of the accused informed the Court that their medical conditions do not allow them to attend hearings. The Court therefore ordered an ambulance to be provided to bring the two defendants to court accompanied by a medical team. This is indeed what was done during the next hearing, where each of them submitted a pleading, and insisted on reading it in full before the Court in open hearing. During that same hearing, the defense attorneys asked for permission to meet with their clients in private for consultation in respect of the defense. The Court allowed it, and ascertained during the next hearing that the authorities concerned had allowed each of the defendants to meet with his Attorney for a full hour.
During the hearing of 22 May 2012, the defense attorneys requested that the defendants be let out of the glass cage in the courtroom. The Court accepted the request despite that fact that the glass cage is equipped with vents, speakers and microphones. The defendants were removed from the cage during all court hearings.
On 27 May 2012, the defense attorneys requested hearing defense witnesses; however, during the hearing of 29 May 2012, they waived their request to hear defense witnesses. During the same hearing, two of the defendants read defense pleadings in open hearing, and then withdrew from the hearing accompanied by their defense attorneys, and refused to attend the subsequent hearings. Moreover, one of the accused did not appear in court and the public prosecutor stated that the defendant refuses to attend court hearings, and is satisfied with his attorney’s representation to follow up trial proceedings.
During the hearing of 12 June 2012, defense attorneys requested allowing them to hold a group meeting with the defendants in jail for a period of one hour. The Court agreed to that request, and made sure during the following hearing that the authorities concerned allowed that meeting to be held. During that same hearing, the Court asked the defense attorneys to submit a list of the names of defense witnesses they wish to hear.
During the hearing of 4 July 2012, one of the defendants requested hearing testimony of defense witnesses. The Court unanimously agreed to hear witnesses in chamber in accordance with the Law. The defendant asked for the media to attend the hearing. The Court accepted and allowed representatives of the media and a representative of the French Embassy to attend and hear testimonies of defense witnesses. However, the defendant asked for a representative of the Embassy of Sweden to be present, but the latter was not present in the courtroom. Subsequently, the defendant asked for the defense witnesses not to be heard in chambers.
During the hearing of 10 July 2012, one of the defendants repeated the above mentioned request to hear defense witnesses. The Court agreed, but he changed his request and insisted on not hearing defense witnesses in chambers.
During the hearing of 14 July 2012, the Court decided to hear all defense witnesses in chambers for considerations at the Court’s discretion as stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also decided that all recordings of the accused would be presented and heard in chambers.
During the hearing of 19 September 2012, all of the defendants refused to appear in Court. The Court ordered defense attorneys to be appointed to represent them and allowed them to meet with the defendants in jail, each separately. It also ordered that they receive copies of the case file.
In the hearing of 24 July 2012, the defendants did not appear in Court, while some members of the original defense team and all of the court-appointed lawyers were present. In that same hearing, the Court decided to adjourn to 28th July for closing arguments. However, all of the defendants did not appear in Court, and the hearing was adjourned to 4th August 2012 for sentencing.
All of the foregoing shows that the Court was keen on ensuring all the rights and guarantees of the accused, and has agreed to all of the legally valid requests made by defense attorneys.
All that it is necessary is to respect all court rulings, because the ruling of the judiciary reflects the truth. The judiciary does not accept criticism, as it does not accept praise. Moreover, the rule of the law in the Kingdom – as in other advanced democratic systems – is totally and indivisibly correlated with the respect of the rulings of the judiciary, which is a corner stone in developed countries. Therefore, court rulings – whether finding innocence or guilt – are not to be linked to political conditions or disputes, whatever they are. The judiciary must always be kept apart from such disputes. In addition, it is necessary to remind everyone that the mission of the judiciary is to achieve justice for all. The existence of an independent judiciary is truly a fundamental guarantee of the rule of law; moreover, the judge’s free and independent functioning is the greatest guarantee for the protection of public and private rights. The independence of the courts is the symbol that ranks higher than all of the immortal images of the judiciary. It is also a basic guarantee of the freedom and rights of individuals and for the support of truly democratic governments. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 embodies this meaning in its Article 10 which stipulates (Everyone is entitled – in full equality – to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him). Moreover, the fact is, without an independent and impartial judiciary, any declaration of rights and liberties, or any talk of equality under law, or assurance of the right of defense, are rendered meaningless.