CAT/C/68/D/782/2016
1.2
In his complaint, the complainant asked the Committee to take interim measures. On
15 November 2016, the Committee, pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure, decided
to request interim measures by asking the State party not to extradite the complainant to
Egypt while the complaint was under the Committee’s consideration.
The facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
The complainant is a journalist and has been a member of the Egyptian journalists’
union since 2005. As a journalist in Egypt, the complainant had published articles on
corruption in the country that implicated senior officials, some of whom currently have
responsibilities within the Government established by General Al Sisi.
2.2
Since 2010, the complainant had worked as a freelance journalist in Egypt and
Morocco. In 2010, he established a media company in Tangier, Morocco, and also a
newspaper, Les Nouvelles du Maghreb. The complainant indicates that it is because of the
articles he published in Egypt that the Egyptian authorities accused him in 2013 of “forgery
and use of forged documents” to justify politically-motivated proceedings. He states that in
December 2014 he had appeared before the State prosecutor in Cairo, who had notified him
verbally that his newspapers were being confiscated. However, he had not been arrested on
that occasion, although he had remained under police surveillance; he had therefore been
constantly afraid of being arrested and tortured.
2.3
In September 2015, he went to Morocco, where he established a media company. He
states that some Arab journalist colleagues entrusted him with opening a local office of an
international federation of Arab journalists. The complainant had therefore returned to
Morocco with a visa that was valid for two months. However, on 17 February 2017, while
he was in a hotel in Casablanca, the complainant was detained by police officers in civilian
clothing, who informed him that an international arrest warrant, transmitted to Interpol, had
been issued against him by the Egyptian authorities on 12 February 2016 for the alleged
offence of “forgery and use of forged documents”. According to the complainant, the
international arrest warrant had been issued by the Egyptian authorities on the basis of
proceedings that had been brought against him in 2013, and had led to him being sentenced
to life imprisonment.4
2.4
Following his arrest, the complainant was first prosecuted by the Moroccan
authorities for “illegal residence” and “forgery and use of forged documents”, owing to the
fact that his residence visa had expired and he had not correctly registered the local office
of the international federation of Arab journalists. Based on those charges, he was referred
to the Ain al-Sabaa Criminal Court in Casablanca on 14 February 2016, and on 29 February
he was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of 1,000 dirhams for
illegal residence and forgery and use of forged documents. It should be noted that the
complainant did not have a lawyer during those proceedings. Incarcerated in Salé prison,
the complainant was kept in detention after completing his three-month prison sentence,
pending extradition on the basis of the international arrest warrant. He now risks being
extradited to Egypt at any time.
2.5
The complainant was informed in a communication from the Court of Cassation
dated 26 September 2016 that, by a judgment dated 25 April 2016, 5 it had ruled in favour of
the extradition request submitted by Egypt. The complainant challenged his extradition to
Egypt on the grounds that he ran the risk of being subjected to torture in his country.
2.6
The complainant states that this case has not been submitted to any other procedure
of investigation or settlement. With regard to the requirement that all available domestic
remedies should have been exhausted, the complainant has pursued all possible effective
remedies. He has continuously challenged his extradition, recalling that he feared for his
life and was in danger of being subjected to torture owing to his activities as a journalist
and the critical articles he had published. Even though the judgment of the Court of
Cassation in favour of the extradition request is final and not subject to any ordinary appeal,
the complainant has continued to challenge his extradition. The complainant, who is being
4
5
2
by telephone should be considered valid authorization for Alkarama to act on his behalf through its
legal director.
The sentence was appended to the initial submission.
The correct date of the judgment is 25 May 2016.
GE.19-22535