zh
stringlengths 1
4.19k
| en
stringlengths 1
3.42k
|
|---|---|
43. 根据案卷材料，据称所有五名被告都被审前拘留了 60 天。在等待调查期间可以延长审前拘留，因此 2020 年 2 月 6 日、4 月 6 日和 6 月 4 日延长了他们的审前拘留。来文方补充说，2020 年 6 月 4 日，打击网络犯罪部发布了一份报告，其中包括“被拘留者手机内容重点”。根据这份报告，只发现了与被拘留者或其工作有关的个人信息。3 见上面脚注 2。
|
43. According to the case files, all five defendants were reportedly put in pretrial detention for a period of 60 days, renewable pending investigations, and their pretrial detention was subsequently extended on 6 February, 6 April and 4 June 2020. The source adds that on 4 June 2020, a report was issued by the Department for Combating Cybercrime, which included “highlights of the contents of the detainees’ phones”. According to this report, only personal information relating to the detainees or to their work was found.
|
44. 据称所有五人都被强迫失踪。在被捕后，不允许他们与家人联系，和/或他们的家人不知道他们的下落或命运。据称，在此期间，他们遭受了酷刑和虐待，例如被蒙住眼睛、身体敏感部位遭到殴打、得不到医疗服务、遭受侮辱和羞辱。
|
44. All five individuals were allegedly forcibly disappeared. Following their arrest, they were not allowed to contact their families and/or their families did not know their whereabouts or fate. During that period, they were allegedly subjected to torture and ill-3 See footnote 2 above. treatment, such as being blindfolded, beaten on sensitive parts of the body,denied medical care, insulted and humiliated.
|
45. 四名被告表示，他们因遭受酷刑而招供，或被迫签署一份供词，但不知道其内容。第五名被告人没有在酷刑下招供，但据称利用从其他被告人强行获得的对他不利的供词作为证据对他定罪。被确定实施酷刑的人员，据称是刑事调查局或Jau 监狱调查部门的人员。据称，两名被告分别因为他们的宗教传统和政治观点而受到歧视。在五名被告中，有三名是未成年人，被关押在新干船坞监狱。另外两名是二十出头的年轻成年人，目前被关押在 Jau 监狱。
|
45. Four of the defendants have indicated that they confessed as a result of torture, or were otherwise forced to sign a statement, the contents of which were unknown to them. While the fifth defendant did not confess under torture, confessions against him forcibly extracted from the other defendants were reportedly used as evidence to convict him. The forces identified as perpetrating the torture were reportedly officers from the Criminal Investigations Department or from the investigations department at Jau prison. Two defendants reported being discriminated against because of their religious tradition and their political views, respectively. Three out of the five defendants are minors and being held in New Dry Dock prison, while the other two are young adults in their early twenties and currently incarcerated in Jau prison.
|
审判程序和判决
|
Trial proceedings and sentencing
|
46. 据称，所有五名被告都是在没有律师在场的情况下受到审问的，而且在审判之前的任何时候都不允许他们会见律师。不允许其中两人在审判期间或审判后与律师交谈，据称不允许其中一人的律师在开庭期间做出回应，只能提交文字陈述。尽管有四名被告出席了听证会，但不允许他们提供证据或为自己的辩护及对不利于他们的证据提出质疑。
|
46. All five defendants were reportedly interrogated without their lawyers being present and they were not granted access to their lawyers at any time before the trial proceedings. Two of them were not permitted to talk to their lawyers during or after the trial, and one of them reported that his lawyer was not allowed to respond and could only send notes during the court sessions. Although four of the defendants were present at the hearing, none of them were permitted to provide evidence or to speak in their own defence and challenge the evidence presented against them.
|
47. 2021 年 1 月 31 日，第一高等刑事法院判定“苏莱曼尼小组”案的所有 18 名被告人有罪，包括本来文中的五人，判处他们五年至无期徒刑不等的徒刑。上诉法院 2021 年 4 月 26 日维持对所有五人的判决。
|
47. On 31 January 2021, the First High Criminal Court convicted all 18 defendants in the Soleimani Cell case, including the 5 individuals in the present communication, and sentenced them to varying prison terms ranging from five years to life imprisonment. On 26 April 2021, the Court of Appeals upheld the judgments against all five individuals.
|
48. 检察院声称，被告组建或加入了一个由伊朗革命卫队资助的恐怖组织，目的是对巴林和在巴林的外国军事基地、会议、输油管道及公众人物进行恐怖袭击。在伊朗将军卡西姆·苏莱曼尼于 2020 年 1 月被暗杀后，巴林官方报纸开始将所谓的恐怖组织贴上“苏莱曼尼小组”标签。检方称，在伊朗将军死后，该组织决定称自己为“卡西姆·苏莱曼尼烈士旅”，并将在巴林的活动集中在为苏莱曼尼的死报仇上。然而，在媒体上出现这些说法之前，向法院提交的案件文件没有提及苏莱曼尼及据称被告在 2017 年至 2019 年期间犯下的大部分罪行。
|
48. The Public Prosecution claimed that the defendants formed or joined a terrorist group funded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, with the aim of carrying out terrorist attacks targeting Bahraini and foreign military bases, conferences, oil pipelines and public figures in Bahrain. Following the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020, official newspapers in Bahrain started labelling the alleged terrorist group “the Soleimani cell”. The prosecution claimed that after the Iranian General’s death, the group decided to call itself “the Brigade of the Martyr Qasem Soleimani” and to focus its activities in Bahrain on avenging Soleimani’s death. However, before these claims appeared in the media, the case papers referred to the court made no mention of Soleimani and most of the crimes allegedly committed by the defendants dated from between 2017 and 2019.
|
49. 法院在判决书中对案件事实的叙述中，将被告、他们所谓的活动及他们据称所属的团体描述为恐怖主义。因此，它将被拘留者及其行为归类为恐怖主义类别，而没有将法律行为与相应的法律规则相联系。4 据称，法院援引了包括在调查报告、资产和没收报告及证人证言中的所有陈述和供词，但无视被告的否认。来文方指出，因此，法院的判决是站不住脚的，因为它基于毫无根据的指控，而且未能提供将法律事实归于相关法律规则的合乎逻辑的法律推理。此外，由于将被告归类为恐怖分子，将他们的活动归类为恐怖主义，无视他们的年龄，5 法院在判决中能够依据的是关于保护社会免遭恐怖主义行为危害的《第 58 号法》(2006 年)，而不是《巴林刑法》，6 前者规定的处罚7 比后者更严厉。
|
49. In its judgment, the court described the defendants, their alleged activities and the group they supposedly belong to as terrorists in its narration of the facts of the case. It has thus classified the detainees and their actions as falling under the category of terrorism without linking the legal acts to the corresponding legal rules.4 The court reportedly evoked all of the statements and confessions included in the investigation report, the assets and seizures reports and the witness statements, but disregarded the defendants’ denials. The source submits that the judgment issued by the court is therefore flimsy as it is based on unfounded accusations and fails to provide a logical legal reasoning that attributes legal facts to the relevant legal rules. Moreover, because it classified the defendants as terrorists and their activities as terrorism, and despite their age, 5 the court was able to rely on Law No. 58 (2006) on protecting society from terrorist acts in its sentencing, rather than on the Bahraini Penal Code,6 the prescribed penalties being harsher under the former7 than under the latter.
|
4 来文方提及关于保护社会免遭恐怖主义行为危害的《第 58 号法》(2006 年)，第 2 条。
|
4 The source refers to Law No. 58 on protecting society from terrorist acts (2006), art. 2.
|
5 五名被告在被捕时，有三名是未成年人。
|
5 Three out of the five defendants were minors at the time of arrest.
|
6 来文方指出，法院在确定刑罚时确实援引了《刑法》第 72 条，但没有援引第 70 和 73 条。
|
6 The source notes that the Court did use article 72 of the Penal Code in its determination of the penalty, but not articles 70 and 73.
|
7 见《第 58 号法》，第 3 条。
|
7 See Law No. 58, art. 3.
|
法律分析
|
Legal analysis
|
50. 来文方指出，所有五名被告在被捕后都遭到强迫失踪，因为政府官员没有透露他们的下落或命运，违背他们的意愿剥夺了他们的自由。8
|
50. The source submits that all five defendants were subjected to enforced disappearance following their arrest because they were deprived of their liberty against their will by government officials who failed to disclose their whereabouts or fate.8
|
51. 来文方也指出，所有被告都受到了不公正审判。他们在没有逮捕令和没有被告知逮捕的理由的情况下被逮捕，在审判前没有被允许会见律师，在没有律师的情况下受到审问，并且没有被允许提供证据为自己的辩护。据称，其中四名被告是基于他们在酷刑和胁迫下所作的供词被定罪的，另一名被告是基于其他被告在酷刑逼供情况下的供词被定罪的。据称，在所有五个案件上，检方都将供词作为对被告不利的主要证据，有时还援引其他不相关的证据，例如在Fadhul先生的案件上(案件 5)。
|
51. The source also submits that all defendants were subjected to unfair trials as they were arrested without a warrant and without being given a reason for their arrest, were not granted access to legal counsel before their trial, were interrogated without their lawyers and were not allowed to present evidence in their own defence. Four of the defendants were reportedly convicted based on confessions they made under torture and duress and one of them was convicted based on confessions made by the other defendants extracted through torture. In all five cases, the prosecution reportedly relied on the confessions as the primary evidence against the defendants, sometimes invoking other irrelevant evidence as in the case of Mr. Fadhul (case 5).
|
52. 因此，据称，巴林当局未能援引令人满意的法律依据来证明逮捕或剥夺被告的自由是正当的，未能遵守《公民及政治权利国际公约》第十四条和《世界人权宣言》第十条所载的与公正审判权有关的国际规范和保障。来文方补充指出，鉴于在五个案上违反包括正当程序和公正审判权在内的国际规范的情况广泛普遍存在，所有案件都属于第一类和第三类。因此，对五名被告的拘留涉嫌具有任意性，违反了《公民及政治权利国际公约》第九条和第十四条。
|
52. The Bahraini authorities have thus reportedly failed to invoke a satisfactory legal basis to justify the defendants’ arrest or deprivation of liberty and observe the international norms and guarantees relating to the right to a fair trial enshrined in article 14 of the Covenant and article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The source adds that because this violation of international norms, including due process and fair trial rights, is extensive and widespread across the five individual cases, all cases fall under categories I and III. The detention of the five defendants is thus allegedly arbitrary and in violation of articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant.
|
53. 此外，来文方认为，剥夺 Naser 先生(案件 1)和 Fadhul 先生(案件 5)的自由也属于第五类，即因为是基于政治见解的歧视。Naser 先生是巴林一位著名宗教人士的孙子，此前曾因参加在祖父家周围举行的和平集会而被捕，检方出示了Fadhul 先生九年多之前参加抗议活动的照片作为证据。在这两个案件上，被告属于政治反对派或表达了政治反对言论，是导致他们在不相关案件上被定罪的因素。
|
53. Moreover, the source believes that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Naser (case 1) and Mr. Fadhul (case 5) also falls under category V, namely for reasons of discrimination based on political opinion. Mr. Naser is the grandson of a prominent religious figure in Bahrain and has previously been arrested for participating in peaceful assemblies around his grandfather’s house, and pictures of Mr. Fadhul participating in protests from more than nine years ago were presented as evidence by the prosecution. In both cases, the defendants’ belonging to or expression of political opposition were factors that contributed to their conviction in an unrelated case.
|
54. 据称，对所有五名被告都实施了酷刑和虐待，以逼他们招供，然后在审判中用来对付他们。据称，当局没有对关于酷刑的任何指控进行调查，受害者没有得到补救，也没有得到公平和充分的赔偿。来文方指出，巴林当局因此也违反了根据《禁止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚公约》第十二、十三、十四和十五条及《公民及政治权利国际公约》第七和第十条所承担的义务。
|
54. All five defendants have allegedly been subjected to torture and ill-treatment in order to extract confessions that were then used against them in trial. None of the torture claims were reportedly investigated by the authorities and the victims did not obtain redress nor fair and adequate compensation. The source submits that the Bahraini authorities have consequently also violated their obligations under articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and under articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant.
|
政府的答复
|
Response from the Government
|
55. 2021 年 6 月 4 日，工作组根据正规来文程序将来文方的指控转交了巴林政府。工作组请巴林政府在 2021 年 8 月 3 日之前提供有关这五人目前状况的详细信息，并澄清继续拘留他们所依据的法律依据，以及是否符合巴林根据国际人权法、特别是国家批准的各项条约所承担的义务。工作组呼吁巴林政府确保有关五人的身心健康。
|
55. On 4 June 2021, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to the Government under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group requested the Government to provide, by 3 August 2021, detailed information about the current situation of the five individuals and to clarify the legal provisions justifying their continued detention, as well as its compatibility with the obligations of Bahrain under international human rights law, and in particular with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. The Working Group called upon the Government to ensure the physical and mental integrity of the five individuals concerned.
|
56. 政府在 2021 年 7 月 29 日的答复中解释称，该案共涉及 18 名被告，包括本意见所涉及的五人。政府辩称，据调查显示，加入了 Wafa 伊斯兰运动军事分支Al-Ashtar 旅的逃亡恐怖分子一直与伊朗革命卫队成员保持联系和协调，从他们那里获得金钱、技术及后勤支持。他们已经通过智能手机通信及消息传递软件和8 来文方提及 A/HRC/16/48/Add.3，第 21 段。应用程序与巴林境内的几个颠覆分子联系。他们招募了一些人，并分派给他们在巴林国家境内实施恐怖行动的任务(见上文第 48 段)。
|
56. In its response of 29 July 2021, the Government explained that the case involved a total of 18 defendants, including the five individuals who are the subject of the present opinion. The Government argues that investigations revealed that the fugitive terrorist members who had joined the Al-Ashtar Brigades, the military arm of the Wafa’ Islamic Movement, are in constant contact and coordination with elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, that they receive from them monetary, technical and logistical support, and that they have contacted several subversive elements within Bahrain through smartphone 8 The source refers to A/HRC/16/48/Add.3, para. 21. communication and messaging software and applications. They have recruited some of them and tasked them to undertake terrorist operations inside the country (see para. 48 above).
|
57. 据称信息和调查也显示，国外的恐怖主义领导人已向在巴林境内的成员发出指令，要求他们在宣布加入一个名为卡西姆·苏索马尼烈士旅的新恐怖主义实体之前，迅速连续实施几次恐怖行动(见上文第 48 段)，以图让人相信伊朗革命卫队控制着巴林的局面。
|
57. The information and investigations reportedly also revealed that terrorist leaders abroad had issued directives to their members inside Bahrain to quickly carry out several consecutive terrorist operations before announcing their affiliation to a new terrorist entity that goes under the name of the Brigades of Martyr Qasem Soleimani (see para. 48 above), in an attempt to make believe that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard controls the scene in Bahrain.
|
58. 有鉴于此，当局根据 2006 年关于保护社会免遭恐怖主义行为危害的《第 58号法》第 27 条赋予执法人员的权力，不得不采取措施，逮捕了上述个人，将他们提交了检察院。检察院于 2020 年 2 月 6 日和 7 日对他们进行了审问。
|
58. In the light of this, the authorities had to take measures and the aforementioned individuals were thus arrested, based on the authority of law enforcement officers enshrined in article 27 of Law No. 58 of 2006 regarding the protection of society from terrorist acts. They were brought before the Public Prosecution which interrogated them on 6 and 7 February 2020.
|
59. 政府辩称，调查和刑事证据总局根据 2006 年《第 58 号法》及其修正案 2020年 1 月 14 日签发了逮捕令，于 2020 年 1 月 16 日逮捕了所有被告。
|
59. The Government argues that the General Directorate of Investigation and Criminal Evidence arrested all the accused on 16 January 2020 on the basis of an arrest warrant dated 14 January 2020 issued pursuant to Law No. 58 of 2006 and its amendments.
|
60. 经检察院批准，在 Husain 先生家中查获了用于制造炸药的三个爆炸装置、雷管、材料及工具。
|
60. Based on the permission of the Public Prosecution, three explosive devices, detonators, materials and tools used in the manufacture of explosives were seized in the house of Mr. Husain.
|
61. 检察院指控被告加入和资助恐怖组织，为了实现恐怖目的，未经许可持有和获取爆炸材料，接受和提供关于如何使用武器和制造爆炸物的培训，企图引爆爆炸物袭击恐怖主义目标，以及拥有易燃装置。检察院下令对九名被告人实施审前羁押候审。在调查程序完成后，将案件移交高等刑事法院审理。
|
61. The Public Prosecution charged the defendants with joining and financing a terrorist group, possessing and acquiring explosive materials without a licence in order to fulfil a terrorist purpose, receiving and providing training on how to use weapons and manufacture explosives, attempting to detonate explosives in the execution of a terrorist objective and possessing flammable devices. The Prosecution ordered the pretrial detention of nine of the defendants pending investigation. After the investigation procedures were completed, the case was referred to the High Criminal Court.
|
62. 2021 年 1 月 31 日，第一高等刑事法院判处八名被告无期徒刑，两名被告 15年有期徒刑，两名被告 10 年有期徒刑，一名被告 7 年有期徒刑，五名被告 5 年有期徒刑，并下令没收查获的所有物品。
|
62. On 31 January 2021, the first High Criminal Court sentenced eight defendants to life imprisonment, two defendants to 15 years’ imprisonment, two defendants to 10 years’ imprisonment, one defendant to 7 years’ imprisonment and five defendants to five years’ imprisonment, and ordered the confiscation of all items seized.
|
63. 上述被告对判决提出上诉，上诉法院于 2021 年 4 月 24 日驳回上诉，维持有争议的判决。
|
63. The aforementioned defendants appealed the judgment, and on 24 April 2021, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the contested judgment.
|
64. 与卫生和社会事务部合作，在内政部对每位囚犯进行了体检，并提供必要的保健和医疗服务。本意见所涉及的所有五人都定期频繁就医，总体上身体健康。
|
64. Each inmate undergoes a medical examination in cooperation with the Department of Health and Social Affairs at the Ministry of the Interior and receives the necessary health and medical care. All the five individuals to whom the present opinion relates have regular and frequent medical visits and are generally in good health.
|
65. 改造和教养总局及其所有中心正在努力赋予包括上述囚犯在内的所有囚犯和被拘留者 2014 年第 18 号《改造和教养机构法》及其执行条例规定的所有权利。除非法律主管当局签发书面命令，否则不得将囚犯或被拘留者安排在此类中心。在命令中规定囚犯在此类中心的具体期限。
|
65. The General Directorate of Reform and Rehabilitation and all its centres are making efforts to grant all inmates and detainees, including the aforementioned inmates, all their rights as stipulated in the Reform and Rehabilitation Institution Law No. 18 of 2014 and its executive regulations. No inmate or detainee is placed in such centres except on the basis of a written order issued by the legally competent authority within the period specified in the order.
|
66. 政府指出，AlJamri 先生在干船坞监狱被单独监禁了一周(见上文第 19 段)，然后被转移到 17 号新楼服刑。在他违反了法律和中心的规定之后，在规范纪律处罚的法律管控范围之内，对他实施了纪律处罚。
|
66. The Government notes that Mr. AlJamri spent a week in solitary confinement in the Dry Dock prison (see para. 19 above) and was transferred to the new building 17, where he serves his sentence. The disciplinary penalty was applied to him at that time, following his violation of the law and the regulations of the centre, within the legal controls governing disciplinary sanctions.
|
67. 关于与家人联系的权利，政府辩称，关于切断被告与家人之间的联系方式的指控是不真实的。在 2020 年 1 月 16 日至 2 月 5 日期间，这五人中的每个人平均给家人打了八次电话。
|
67. Regarding the right to family contact, the Government argues that the allegations concerning the cutting off of modes of communication between the accused and their families are untrue. Between 16 January and 5 February 2020, each of the five individuals made an average of eight calls to their family.
|
68. 政府补充指出，允许被告与家人联系是国内法规定的最重要的权利之一。该国内法允许被拘留者在被拘留后享有与亲属联系的权利，告知他们发生的事情，以及寻求律师的协助。因此，主管当局履行的诉讼程序是正确的法律程序，是根据有效的逮捕令对他们进行逮捕的，允许他们与亲属联系并告知他们的所在。因此，关于他们被强迫失踪、被捕后不准联系及阻止他们告知家人他们的下落和安好的指控，是毫无根据的、不真实的。
|
68. The Government adds that allowing the accused to communicate with their family is one of the most important rights stipulated by domestic law, which allows detainees, upon detention, the right to contact their relatives to inform them of what has happened and to seek the assistance of a lawyer. Accordingly, the proceedings conducted by the competent authority are a sound legal procedure, as they were arrested in accordance with a valid arrest warrant and allowed to communicate with their relatives and inform them of their whereabouts, so the allegations of their enforced disappearance, deprivation of communication after their arrest, and prevention of them informing their family of their whereabouts and well-being are baseless and false.
|
69. 此外，外国囚犯有权与大使馆或外交或领事代表联系。囚犯改造和教养部竭力赋予上述所有人这项权利，他们都能够与家人进行视频通话，作为探视的替代，这与为应对 2019 冠状病毒病大流行而采取的预防措施相吻合。
|
69. In addition, a foreign inmate is granted the right to contact their embassy or diplomatic or consular representative. The Department of Reform and Rehabilitation of Inmates is keen to grant this right to all the aforementioned, as all of them were able to communicate visually with their families as an alternative to a visit, coinciding with the precautionary measures taken in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
70. 关于内政部禁止 AlJamri 先生指定律师的指控，所有囚犯均享有 2014 年第18 号《改造和教养机构法》规定的权利。因此，如果囚犯希望指定律师，或者如果一名律师为任何囚犯提交授权书，允许每个人完成这一程序。
|
70. Regarding the allegations that the Ministry of the Interior prohibited Mr. AlJamri from appointing a lawyer, all inmates enjoy the rights stipulated in the Reform and Rehabilitation Institution Law No. 18 of 2014. Accordingly, if the inmate wishes to appoint a lawyer, or if one of the lawyers submits an authorization for any inmate, each of them is allowed to complete these procedures.
|
71. 至于 AlJamri 先生因宗教信仰而经常遭受歧视的指控(见上文第 18 段)，改造和教养总局确保囚犯和被拘留者根据《改造和教养机构法》举行自己的宗教仪式，毫无例外或歧视。
|
71. Addressing the allegation that Mr. AlJamri suffers constant discrimination on the basis of his religious beliefs (see para. 18 above), the General Directorate of Reform and Rehabilitation ensures that inmates and detainees practice their religious rites without exception or discrimination and in accordance with the Reform and Rehabilitation Institution Law.
|
72. 如果恰逢阿舒拉节，囚犯和被审前拘留的人可以以安静和宁静的方式举行这种场合的宗教仪式，确保法律规定的不扰乱公共秩序。
|
72. Coinciding with the occasion of Ashura, inmates and those held in pretrial detention are allowed to practice the religious rites of this occasion in a manner that ensures calm and tranquillity, without disturbing the public order as legally prescribed.
|
73. 政府指出，指控称在 2019 冠状病毒病大流行期间，许多在刑事案件中被定罪的囚犯被释放，而诸如 Fadhul 先生(案件 5)等良心犯和政治犯普遍被排除在替代刑罚之外(见上文第 41 段)。政府指出，关于替代刑罚和措施的 2017 年《第 18号法》明确规定了可以替代刑罚必须满足的法律条件。当这些条件得到满足时，主管当局实施该法律的规定，执行替代处罚。
|
73. The Government notes the allegations that many prisoners convicted in criminal cases were released in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic, while prisoners of conscience and political prisoners such as Mr. Fadhul (case 5) were generally excluded from benefiting from alternative sentences (see para. 41 above). The Government notes that Law No. 18 of 2017 on alternative penalties and measures clarifies the legal conditions that must be met for the possibility of replacing the penalty, and when those conditions are met, the competent authority puts the provisions of the law into effect and the penalty is replaced.
|
74. 巴林一直积极奉行尊重以每个人所享有的、若干国际或地方法律文书所规定的所有权利和自由为代表的人权原则，努力加强司法和法治。内政部注重尊重囚犯的所有权利，无论这些权利是《宪法》规定的，是国际条约和协定规定的，还是国家法律规定的。如果司法人员超出限制，其行为侵犯了他人的权利和自由，独立监督机构对此类指控进行调查。
|
74. Bahrain has always been keen to enshrine the principle of respect for human rights, represented by all the rights and freedoms enjoyed by every individual and stipulated in several international or local legal documents, as well as the consolidation of justice and the rule of law. The Ministry of the Interior is keen to respect all the rights of inmates, whether they are rights emanating from the Constitution, from international treaties and agreements, or from national laws and, in the event that a judicial officer exceeds his limits, rendering his act a violation of the rights and freedoms of others, independent monitoring bodies investigate such allegations.
|
75. 随着 2019 冠状病毒病大流行的蔓延，为了保护改造和教养中心的囚犯和工作人员的健康，加强了在这方面的工作。
|
75. In conjunction with the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and in order to preserve the health of inmates and workers in the reform and rehabilitation centres, the pace of efforts taken in this regard has doubled.
|
76. 综上所述，政府得出结论认为，对囚犯采取的法律措施是合理的，符合当地或国际法律原则的规定。关于任意拘留和违反国际条约和国际人道主义法的指控只是与现实毫无关系的申诉。
|
76. Noting all the above, the Government concludes that the legal measures taken against the inmates were sound and consistent with what was stipulated in the legal principles, whether local or international, and that the allegations of arbitrary detention and violation of international treaties and international humanitarian law are merely claims that have nothing to do with reality.
|
来文方提交的补充意见
|
Additional comments from the source
|
77. 2021 年 7 月 30 日，将政府的答复转交来文方，以便其作进一步评论。来文方在 2021 年 8 月 12 日的答复中，重申了在之前提交的材料中的结论。来文方补充说，政府的答复未能处理一些严重的违规行为和问题。至于它确实处理的指控，政府的答复往往不能令人满意或过于模糊，不能消除对违法行为的指控。
|
77. On 30 July 2021, the Government’s reply was transmitted to the source for its further comments. In its response of 12 August 2021, the source reiterates the conclusions made in its previous submission. It adds that the Government’s response fails to address several serious violations and issues. As for the accusations that it does tackle, the Government’s response is often unsatisfactory or too vague to dismiss accusations of legal violations.
|
讨论情况
|
Discussion
|
78. 工作组感谢来文方和政府及时提交材料。
|
78. The Working Group thanks the source and the Government fortheir timely submissions.
|
79. 在确定剥夺这五人的自由是否具有任意性时，工作组考虑了其判例中确立的处理证据问题的原则。如果来文方提出了违反国际法并构成任意拘留的初步证据，政府如要反驳指控，则应承担举证责任。政府仅仅声称遵循了法律程序并不能充分地驳斥来文方的指控。9
|
79. In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of the five individuals is arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has presented a prima facie case for breach of the international law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.9
|
80. 工作组重申，各国有义务尊重、保护和落实所有人权和基本自由，包括人身自由。任何允许剥夺自由的国内法的制定和实施都应符合《世界人权宣言》、《公民及政治权利国际公约》、《禁止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚公约》及其他适用的国际和区域文书所规定的相关国际标准。10 因此，即使拘留符合国内法律、法规和做法，工作组也有权、实际上有义务评估拘留情况和法律本身，以确定此类拘留是否也符合国际人权法的相关规定。11
|
80. The Working Group reaffirms that States have the obligation to respect, protect and fulfil all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the liberty of persons, and that any national law allowing deprivation of liberty should be made and implemented in conformity with the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenant, the Convention again Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and other applicable international and regional instruments.10 Consequently, even if the detention is in conformity with national legislation, regulations and practices, the Working Group is entitled and indeed obliged to assess the circumstances of the detention and the law itself to determine whether such detention is also consistent with the relevant provisions of international human rights law.11
|
81. 在本案上，来文方辩称，对这五人的拘留具有任意性，属于第一、第三及第五类。政府在答复中否认了这些指控。工作组将着手依次审查这些指控。
|
81. In the present case, the source argues that the detention of the five individuals is arbitrary and falls under categories I, III and V. In its response, the Government denies these allegations. The Working Group will proceed to examine the allegations in turn.
|
一. 第一类
|
i. Category I
|
82. 来文方指出，所有五人于 2020 年 1 月 16 日在没有逮捕令、也没有说明逮捕理由的情况下被捕。政府在答复中声称，根据情报信息(见上文第 56 和 57 段)，它必须采取措施，根据 2006 年《第 58 号法》签发的日期为 2020 年 1 月 14 日的逮捕令，于 2020 年 1 月 16 日逮捕了这五人。将这些人带到检察院，检察院于2020 年 2 月 6 日和 7 日对他们进行了审问。
|
82. The source submits that all five individuals were arrested on 16 January 2020 without an arrest warrant and without being given a reason for their arrest. In its response, the Government asserts that on the basis of intelligence information (see paras. 56 and 57 above), it had to take measures which resulted in the arrest of the five individuals on 16 January 2020 on the basis of an arrest warrant dated 14 January 2020 issued pursuant to Law No. 58 of 2006. The individuals were presented before the Public Prosecution, which interrogated them on 6 and 7 February 2020.
|
83. 工作组回顾指出，关于拘留问题的国际法包括有权要求出示逮捕令，以确保合格、独立和无偏倚的司法当局实施有效控制。这是《世界人权宣言》第三和第九条、《公民及政治权利国际公约》第九条以及《保护所有遭受任何形式拘留或监禁的人的原则》之原则 2、4 和 10 规定的人身自由和人身安全权及禁止任意剥夺的固有程序。12
|
83. The Working Group recalls that international law on detention includes the right to be presented with an arrest warrant to ensure the exercise of effective control by a competent, independent and impartial judicial authority, which is procedurally inherent in the right to liberty and security and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 of the Covenant and principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.12
|
84. 根据《公民及政治权利国际公约》第九条第一款，除非依照法律所确定的根据和程序，任何人不得被剥夺自由。第九条第二款规定，任何被逮捕的人，在被逮捕时应被告知逮捕他的理由，并应被迅速告知对他提出的任何指控。
|
84. According to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one shall be deprived of liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law. Article 9 (2) provides that anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for the arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges.
|
85. 工作组注意到，来文方坚称没有对这五人中的任何人发出逮捕令。但政府表示，已经针对这些逮捕发出了日期为 2020 年 1 月 14 日的逮捕令。工作组认为，没有理由不相信政府在这方面的说法。实际上，工作组认为，在是否有针对这五人的逮捕令上，来文方的立场与政府的立场之间没有矛盾。工作组看到的是信息缺口，即在逮捕这些人时，是否向本人实际出示了逮捕令。86. 工作组认为，与逮捕和拘留有关的义务，是向被逮捕者出示逮捕令，而不仅仅是逮捕当局准备逮捕令。已准备好但未向被捕人出示的令状，是无效的，因为它没有起作用。9 A/HRC/19/57，第 68 段。10 例如，见第 14/2020 号意见，第 45 段；以及第 32/2020 号意见，第 29 段。11 同上。12 工作组自设立之初起就坚持认为，在没有逮捕令的情况下逮捕人，这一做法使拘留具有任意性。关于最近的判例，例如见第 33/2020号意见，第 54段；以及第 34/2020号意见，第 46段。
|
85. The Working Group notes that while the source maintains that no arrest warrant was issued to any of the five individuals, the Government states that an arrest warrant, dated 14 January 2020, in respect of the arrests was produced. The Working Group finds no basis to disbelieve the narrative of the Government in this regard. In fact, the Working Group sees no contradiction between the position of the source and that of the Government regarding the 9 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68. 10 See, for example, opinions No. 14/2020, para. 45, and No. 32/2020, para. 29. 11 Ibid. 12 The Working Group has maintained from its early years that the practice of arresting persons without a warrant renders their detention arbitrary. For more recent jurisprudence, see for example, opinions No. 33/2020, para. 54, and No. 34/2020, para. 46.
|
87. 工作组在与巴林有关的最近案件上发现，逮捕时没有出示逮捕令和说明逮捕理由，也没有及时告知指控，这表明不遵守逮捕程序是一个系统性问题。13
|
87. The Working Group has found in recent cases concerning Bahrain that an arrest warrant and reasons for the arrest were not provided at the time of arrest, and that prompt notification was not provided of the charges, which suggests that the failure to comply with arrest procedures is a systemic problem.13
|
88. 工作组注意到，在本案上，虽然政府在答复中坚称逮捕令已准备好并有日期，但未处理来文方关于逮捕时未出示逮捕令的申诉。考虑到在工作组判例中确立的处理证据问题的原则，如果来文方有初步证据证明存在违反国际规定构成任意拘留的行为时，政府如要反驳指控，则应承担举证责任。在此案上，政府未能承担举证责任。
|
88. In this case, the Working Group notes that while the Government maintained in its response that a warrant of arrest was prepared and dated, it left unaddressed the source’s claim that the warrant was not presented at the time of arrest. Having regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues, if the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government to refute the allegations. It has failed to do so in this case.
|
89. 当局没有出示逮捕令，没有告知逮捕理由，也没有确保及时告知对被告的指控，因此未能证明逮捕这五人有法律依据。这使得对这五人的逮捕和拘留具有任意性，属于第一类。
|
89. In failing to present an arrest warrant, to provide reasons for the arrest and to ensure prompt notification of the charges, the authorities did not establish a legal basis for the arrest of the five individuals. This makes the arrest and detention of the five individuals arbitrary under category I.
|
90. 来文方还指控称，所有五名被告被捕后都被带到刑事调查局关押，在 27 天至一个月不等的时间段内受到审问。政府否认这些指控，坚称于 2020 年 1 月 16日将他们逮捕，并转交到检察院。检察院于 2020 年 2 月 6 日和 7 日对他们进行了审问。然而，政府没有解释这五人自 2020 年 1 月 16 日被捕至 2020 年 2 月 6 日被转交检察院之间约 22 天的期间的下落。政府没有提及这五人在刑事调查局呆过的时间。
|
90. The source also alleges that all five defendants were taken to the Criminal Investigations Department upon their arrest and held there for interrogation for periods of time ranging between 27 days and one month. The Government denies these allegations, maintaining that they were arrested on 16 January 2020 and referred to the Public Prosecution, which interrogated them on 6 and 7 February 2020. The Government does not, however, explain the whereabouts of the five individuals from the time they were arrested on 16 January 2020 until the time they were presented to the Public Prosecution on 6 February 2020, a period of about 22 days. The Government did not refer to the time the five individuals spent at the Criminal Investigations Department.
|
91. 根据《公民及政治权利国际公约》第九条第三款，任何因刑事指控被逮捕或拘禁的人，应被迅速带见审判官。正如人权事务委员会指出的，48 小时通常足以满足在逮捕后将被拘留者“迅速”带见法官的要求，任何更长时间的拖延都必须是绝对例外的，而且根据情况应当是有正当理由的。14 在本案上，政府没有达到这项要求，也没有为拖延提出任何理由。此外，将这些人带到检察机关，而检察机关不能被视为《公民及政治权利国际公约》第九条第三款所指的司法当局。15在 AlJamri、Sayed Redha Fadhul 及 Sayed Falah Fadhul 先生的案件上，拖延尤为严重。他们在被捕时都是未成年人，对未成年人应适用严格的“迅速”标准，在逮捕 24 小时内将其带到法院。16 没有迅速将三名未成年人带见司法当局，违反《儿童权利公约》第三十七条(D)款。
|
91. According to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge. As the Human Rights Committee has stated, 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement of bringing a detainee “promptly” before a judge following the arrest and any longer delay must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.14 In the present case, the Government did not meet this requirement and it did not provide any justification for the delay. In addition, the individuals were brought before the Office of Public Prosecution, which cannot be considered a judicial authority for the purposes of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. 15 The delay was particularly serious in the case of Messrs. AlJamri, Sayed Redha Fadhul and Sayed Falah Fadhul, who were all minors at the time of their arrest. A strict standard of promptness applies to minors, who should be brought before a court within 24 hours of arrest.16 The failure to bring the three minors promptly before a judicial authority violated article 37 (d) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
|
92. 此外，来文方指控，所有五人在被捕后都遭受强迫失踪，不允许他们与家人联系，和/或他们的家人不知道他们的下落或命运。尽管政府在答复中表示这些指控是毫无根据的、不真实的，但没有为反驳这些指控进一步证实其断言。政府官员拒绝透露这五人的命运和下落，似乎确实违背他们的意愿剥夺了他们的自由。17 在这种情况下，工作组倾向于接受来文方的说法，即这五人遭受了强迫失踪，违反《公民及政治权利国际公约》第九和第十四条，构成了特别严重的任意拘留。18 工作组指出，他们也被置于法律保护之外，违反《世界人权宣言》第六13 除其他外，见第 73/2019 号意见、第 5/2020 号意见及第 41/2020 号意见。
|
92. Furthermore, the source alleges that all five individuals were subjected to enforced disappearance following their arrests as they were not allowed to contact their families and/or their families did not know their whereabouts or fate. Although the Government, in its response, states that these allegations are baseless and false, it does not substantiate its assertions any further in order to refute such allegations. It would indeed appear that the five 13 See, inter alia, opinions No. 73/2019, No. 5/2020 and No. 41/2020.
|
14 人权事务委员会，第 35 号一般性意见(2014 年)，第 33 段。
|
14 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
|
15 同上，第 32 段；第 14/2015 号意见，第 28 段；以及第 5/2020 号意见，第 72 段。
|
15 Ibid., para. 32; opinions No. 14/2015, para. 28, and No. 5/2020, para. 72.
|
16 人权事务委员会，第 35 号一般性意见(2014 年)，第 33 段；第 5/2020 号意见，第 72 段；和第41/2020 号，第 60 段；以及儿童权利委员会，第 24 号一般性意见(2019 年)，第 90 段。
|
16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33; opinions No. 5/2020, para. 72, and No. 41/2020, para. 60; and Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019), para. 90.
|
17 A/HRC/16/48/Add.3，第 21 段。18 人权事务委员会，第 35 号一般性意见(2014 年)，第 17 段；以及第 5/2020 号意见，第 74 段。条和《公民及政治权利国际公约》第十六条。19 工作组将把此案提交给强迫或非自愿失踪问题工作组。
|
individuals were deprived of their liberty against their will by governmentofficials who refused to disclose their fate and whereabouts. 17 The Working Group is in these circumstances inclined to accept the assertion of the source that the five individuals were subjected to enforced disappearance, which contravened articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant, and constitute a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention.18 The Working Group notes that they were also placed outside the protection of the law, in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 16 of the Covenant.19 The Working Group will refer this case to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
|
93. 此外，来文方提供的材料表明，这些人在被拘留的最初阶段被单独监禁，似乎没有人能够根据《公民及政治权利国际公约》第九条第四款对拘留提出异议。正如工作组所指出的，不允许被关押的人与外界、特别是他们的家人及律师接触，违反他们根据《公民及政治权利国际公约》第九条第四款20 和《儿童权利公约》第三十七条(D)款规定的向法院对拘留的合法性提出异议的权利。对剥夺自由进行司法监督，是个人自由的基本保障，对于确保拘留具有法律依据至关重要。21 鉴于这五人被单独监禁，因此无法对其拘留提出异议，他们根据《世界人权宣言》第八条和《公民及政治权利国际公约》第二条第三款规定享有的获得有效补救的权利受到了侵犯。
|
93. In addition, the information provided by the source indicates that the individuals were held incommunicado at the initial stages of their detention, and none of them appear to have been able to challenge their detention in accordance with article 9 (4) of the Covenant. As the Working Group has argued, holding persons with no access to the outside world, in particular to their family members and lawyers, violates their right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court under article 9 (4) of the Covenant20 and article 37 (d) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Judicial oversight of the deprivation of liberty is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty and is critical in ensuring that detention has a legal basis.21 Given that the five individuals were held incommunicado and were therefore unable to challenge their detention, their right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant was violated.
|
94. 最后，是根据关于保护社会免遭恐怖主义行为危害的 2006 年《第 58 号法》对这五人提出起诉的，人权事务委员会曾认定，该法关于恐怖主义的定义过于宽泛。工作组亦曾认定，该条款过于模糊和宽泛。22 在本案上适用模糊和过于宽泛的条款，使工作组得出更多结论，即拘留没有法律依据。
|
94. Lastly, the five individuals were prosecuted under Law No. 58 of 2006 on the protection of society from terrorist acts, a law that the Human Rights Committee has found to include an overly broad definition of terrorism. The Working Group has also determined that the provision is overly vague and broad.22 The application of vague and overly broad provisions in this case adds to the Working Group’s conclusion that the detentions were without legal basis.
|
95. 因此，工作组认为，政府未能为拘留这五人提出法律依据。因此，对他们的拘留具有任意性，属于第一类。
|
95. Consequently, the Working Group finds that the Government failed to establish a legal basis for the detention of the five individuals. Their detentions were thus arbitrary under category I.
|
二. 第三类
|
ii. Category III
|
96. 来文方指出，这些人在受审前未获准会见律师，对所有人的审问均是在律师不在场的情况下进行的。一些人在审判期间和审判后也受到限制(见上文第 46段)。尽管有四名被告出席了听证会，但据称他们中没有一人被允许提供证据或为自己辩护，或者对不利于他们的证据提出异议。
|
96. The source submits that the individuals were not granted access to legal counsel before their trial and were all interrogated in the absence of their lawyers. Some also faced restrictions during and after the trial (see para. 46 above). Although four of the accused persons were present at the hearing, none of them were reportedly permitted to provide evidence or to speak in their own defence and challenge the evidence presented against them.
|
97. 政府在对这些指控做出的答复中表示，所有在押人员均享有 2014 年第 18 号《改造和教养机构法》所规定的权利。因此，律师可以在当局监视但不监听的情况下探视被拘留的当事人。然而，政府的答复是笼统的，并不是专门针对来文方在这方面的指控。无论如何，存在法律并不能保证它的任何实际实施。因此，工作组倾向于接受来文方关于这个问题的认定。
|
97. In responding to these allegations, the Government states that all inmates enjoy the rights stipulated in the Reform and Rehabilitation Institution Law No. 18 of 2014. Lawyers are thus allowed to visit their detained clients in full view but out of hearing of the authorities. However, the Government’s response is generic and has not specifically addressed the claims of the source in this regard. In any case, the existence of the law does not guarantee any practical implementation of it. The Working Group is thus inclined to accept the source’s assertion on this issue.
|
98. 工作组回顾指出，所有被剥夺自由者有权在拘留期间的任何时候获得他们选择的律师的法律协助，包括在被逮捕后立即得到这种协助。23 被拘留者有权“迅速获得”法律顾问，这意味着律师有权与被拘留者私下交流和会面，并在不受干扰或限制的情况下参加所有调查。24 此外，被拘留者应有机会获得“有效的咨
|
98. The Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice at any time during their detention, including immediately after their apprehension.23 A detainee has the right to have “prompt access” to legal counsel, which means that a lawyer is granted the right to have private communication
|
19 CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1，第 35–36 段；第 59/2019 号意见，第 50 段；以及第 5/2020 号意见，第73–74 段。
|
19 CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1, paras. 35–36; opinions No. 59/2019, para. 50, and No. 5/2020, paras. 73–74.
|
20 见第 45/2017 号意见、第 33/2019 号意见及第 45/2019 号意见。
|
20 See opinions No. 45/2017, No. 33/2019 and No. 45/2019.
|
21 A/HRC/30/37，第 3 段。
|
21 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3.
|
22 CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1，第 29 段；第 59/2019 号意见，第 60 段；以及第 5/2020 号意见，第 76段。
|
22 CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1, para. 29, and opinions No. 59/2019, para. 60, and No. 5/2020, para. 76.
|
23 《关于与任何被剥夺自由者向法院提起诉讼的权利有关的补救措施和程序的基本原则和准则》，原则 9 和准则 8。
|
23 Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Persons Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, principle 9 and guideline 8.
|
24 A/HRC/45/16，第 50–55 段。询”。25 法律顾问的有效性与《世界人权宣言》第十一条和《公民及政治权利国
|
and meetings with the detainee and to attend all investigations without interference or restrictions.24 Furthermore, a detainee ought to have access to “effective counsel.”
|
询”。25 法律顾问的有效性与《世界人权宣言》第十一条和《公民及政治权利国际公约》第十四条规定的权利平等原则有着根本的联系。
|
25 The effectiveness of the legal counsel is fundamentally related to the principle of equality of arms, as enshrined in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
|
99. 工作组认为，政府未能在任何时候尊重这五人获得法律援助的权利。根据《世界人权宣言》第三、第九、第十条和第十一条第一款、《公民及政治权利国际公约》第九和十四条及《保护所有遭受任何形式拘留或监禁的人的原则》之原则 15、17 及 18, 获得法律援助的权利是人身自由和安全权的固有内容，也是获得由依法设立的合格、独立和公正法庭公正公开审理的权利的固有内容。AlJamri、Sayed Redha Fadhul 及 Sayed Falah Fadhul 先生作为未成年人的下述权利也遭到侵犯：根据《儿童权利公约》第三十七条(D)款迅速获得法律援助的权利，根据同一公约第四十条第 2 款(B)(二)和(三)项在准备辩护中获得法律援助的权利和在有法律援助的情况下获得公正审理的权利。
|
99. In the Working Group’s view, the Government failed to respect the right of the five individuals to legal assistance at all times, which is inherent in the right to liberty and security of the person, and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with articles 3, 9, 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant and principles 15, 17 and 18 of the Body of Principles. There was also a violation of the rights of Messrs. AlJamri, Sayed Redha Fadhul and Sayed Falah Fadhul as minors to prompt access to legal assistance under article 37 (d) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and to legal assistance in the preparation of their defence and a fair hearing in the presence of legal assistance under articles 40 (2) (b) (ii) and (iii) of the same Convention.
|
100. 工作组也认为，这种违反行为大大削弱和损害了这五人在随后的任何司法程序中为自己辩护的能力。26
|
100. The Working Group also considers that this violation substantially undermined and compromised the capacity of the five individuals to defend themselves in any subsequent judicial proceedings.26
|
101. 来文方进一步指控称，所有五人都遭受了酷刑和虐待逼供，然后用于对他们的审判中。其中四名被告表示，他们因遭受酷刑而招供，或者被迫签署一份不知道内容的供词。虽然第五名被告没有在酷刑下招供，但据称把强行从其他被告获得的对他不利的供词作为证据对他定罪。据称此类酷刑和虐待包括被蒙住眼睛、殴打身体的敏感部位、拒绝提供医疗、侮辱及羞辱。据称，当局没有对关于酷刑的任何指控进行调查，受害者没有获得补救或公平和充分的赔偿。
|
101. The source further alleges that all five individuals were subjected to torture and ill-treatment in order to extract confessions which were then used against them at their trial. Four of the accused have indicated that they confessed as a result of torture, or were otherwise forced to sign a statement, the contents of which were unknown to them. While the fifth defendant did not confess under torture, confessions against him forcibly extracted from the other defendants were reportedly used as evidence to convict him. Such torture and ill-treatment allegedly included being blindfolded, beaten on sensitive parts of the body, denied medical care, insulted and humiliated. None of the claims of torture were reportedly investigated by the authorities and the victims did not obtain redress or fair and adequate compensation.
|
102. 政府在答复中称，囚犯的待遇符合当地和国际法律原则的规定，关于缔约国违反各项条约和国际人道主义法的指控都是不真实的。假定来文方所述的据称对有关人施加的酷刑的具体情况，工作组认为政府的笼统否认缺乏说服力。因此，工作组认为，政府并没有有效地反驳这些指控。
|
102. The Government, in its response, states that the treatment of the inmates was consistent with stipulations of legal principles, both local and international, and that the allegations of the State party’s violation of the various treaties and international humanitarian law are false. Granted the specific instances of alleged torture that is said to have been inflicted on the persons involved, as recounted by the source, the Working Group finds the Government’s general denial unconvincing. In consequence, the Working Group is of the view that the Government has not effectively rebutted the allegations.
|
103. 因此，工作组认为，来文方提出了令人信服的初步证据，证明这五人遭受了酷刑和虐待，导致被迫招供，27 违反绝对禁止酷刑这一国际法强制性规范以及《世界人权宣言》第五条、《公民及政治权利国际公约》第七条及《禁止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚公约》第二和第十六条。此外，工作组收到令人信服的指控，这三名未成年人遭受了酷刑，违反《儿童权利公约》第三十七条(A)和(C)款。在身体或心理上对儿童使用强力是一种极为严重的滥用权力行为。28 必须对指控的酷刑和虐待进行彻底独立调查。
|
103. The Working Group thus considers that the source has presented a credible prima facie case that the five individuals were subjected to torture and ill-treatment, resulting in forced confessions,27 in violation of the absolute prohibition of torture as a peremptory norm of international law, as well as of article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 7 of the Covenant and articles 2 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Moreover, the Working Group received credible allegations that the three minors had been tortured, contrary to articles 37 (a) and (c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The use of physical or psychological force on a child is an extremely serious abuse of power.28 The alleged torture and ill-treatment must be subject to a thorough and independent investigation.
|
104. 工作组也认为，来文方关于逼供的说法是可信的。政府没有对来文方关于在审讯期间在作出此类供词时没有律师在场的指控予以处理。在没有法律代表的情况下所作的供述不能作为刑事诉讼中的证据。29 此外，无论是否有其他证据支25 尤其见《关于律师作用的基本原则》之原则 2。26 另见人权事务委员会，第 32 号一般性意见(2007 年)，第 34 段。27 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3，第 8 段和第 16–17 段。28 第 73/2019 号意见，第 90 段；以及第 5/2020 号意见，第 80 段。29 第 59/2019 号意见，第 70 段；和第 73/2019 号意见，第 91 段；以及 E/CN.4/2003/68，第 26(e)段。另见儿童权利委员会，第 24 号一般性意见(2007 年)，第 60 段。持判决，采信通过酷刑或虐待获得的供词作为证据，导致整个诉讼程序有失公正。30 政府有责任证明供述是自愿作出的，31 但它没有这样做。
|
104. The Working Group also considers that the source’s claims about forced confessions are credible. The Government has not addressed the alleged absence of legal counsel during the interrogations when such confessions were made. Confessions made in the absence of legal representation are not admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings.29 Further, the 24 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 50–55. 25 See, in particular, principle 2 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. 26 See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34. 27 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3, paras. 8 and 16–17. 28 Opinions No. 73/2019, para. 90, and No. 5/2020, para. 80. 29 Opinions No. 59/2019, para. 70, and No. 73/2019, para. 91; and E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (e). See also Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2007), para. 60.
|
正。30 政府有责任证明供述是自愿作出的，31 但它没有这样做。
|
admission into evidence of a statement allegedly obtained through torture or ill-treatment renders the entire proceedings unfair, regardless of whether other evidence was available to support the verdict.30 The burden is on the Government to prove that statements were given freely,31 but it has not done so.
|
105. 因此，五人根据《公民及政治权利国际公约》第十四条第二款和三名未成年人根据《儿童权利公约》第四十条第 2 款(B)(一)项享有的无罪推定权受到侵犯。他们根据《公民及政治权利国际公约》第十四条第三款(庚)项和《儿童权利公约》第四十条第 2 款(B)(四)项享有的不被强迫认罪的权利也受到侵犯。故意施加压力以获得供词，进一步违反《禁止酷刑公约》第二、十三、十五及十六条。32工作组将此案提交给酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚问题特别报告员。
|
105. As a result, right of the five individuals to be presumed innocent under article 14 (2) of the Covenant and, in the case of the three minors, under article 40 (2) (b) (i) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, was violated. Their right not to be compelled to confess guilt under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant and article 40 (2) (b) (iv) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child was also violated. The intentional infliction of pressure to obtain a confession further violates articles 2, 13, 15 and 16 of the Convention against Torture.32 The Working Group refers this case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
|
106. 此外，工作组注意到，这五人是在 2021 年 1 月 31 日对 18 名被告的集体审判中被判刑的。工作组近期曾强调指出，集体审判无助于司法公正，也不符合公正审判的标准，因为在这种诉讼程序中不可能对个人责任进行具体评估。33 工作组不相信，在如此大规模的审判中，能够在排除合理怀疑的情况下对所有被告的罪责进行个别评估。这违反《公民及政治权利国际公约》第十四条第一款。
|
106. In addition, the Working Group notes that the five individuals were sentenced in a mass trial of 18 defendants on 31 January 2021. As the Working Group has recently emphasized, mass trials are incompatible with the interests of justice and do not meet the standards of a fair trial, given that it is impossible during such proceedings to conduct a specific assessment of individual responsibility.33 The Working Group is not convinced that it was possible for all defendants in such a large trial to receive an individualized assessment of their culpability beyond reasonable doubt, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
|
107. 因此，工作组得出结论认为，对这五人的公正审判权的侵犯如此严重，致使对他们的拘留具有任意性，属于第三类。
|
107. The Working Group thus concludes that the violations of the fair trial rights of the five individuals were of such gravity, as to render their detention arbitrary, falling under category III.
|
三. 第五类
|
iii. Category V
|
108. 来文方指出，剥夺 Naser 先生(案件 1)和 Sayed Falah Fadhul 先生(案件 5)的自由也属于第五类，即因为是基于政治见解的歧视。Naser 先生是巴林一位著名宗教人士的孙子，此前曾因参加在祖父家周围举行的和平集会而被捕。检方出示了Fadhul先生九年多之前参加抗议活动的照片作为证据。在这两个案件上，被告属于政治反对派或表达政治反对言论，是导致他们在不相关的案件上被定罪的因素。
|
108. The source has submitted that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Naser (case 1) and Mr. Sayed Falah Fadhul (case 5) also falls under category V, namely for reasons of discrimination based on political opinion. Mr. Naser is the grandson of a prominent religious figure in Bahrain and has previously been arrested for participating in peaceful assemblies around his grandfather’s house, and pictures of Mr. Fadhul participating in protests from more than nine years ago were presented as evidence by the prosecution. In both cases, the defendants’ belonging to or expression of political opposition were factors that contributed to their conviction in an unrelated case.
|
109. 在政府没有作任何解释的情况下，工作组得出结论认为，Naser 先生和Sayed Falah Fadhul 先生因基于政治见解的歧视而被拘留。在这些情况下，工作组认为，政府违反了《世界人权宣言》第二和第七条及《公民及政治权利国际公约》第二条第一款和第二十六条，对他们的拘留也具有任意性，属于第五类。
|
109. In the absence of any explanation from the Government, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Naser and Mr. Sayed Falah Fadhul were detained for reasons of discrimination based on political opinion. In these circumstances, the Working Group finds that the Government has violated articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, and that their detention is also arbitrary under category V.
|
结论性意见
|
Concluding remarks
|
110. 工作组对这五人的身心健康感到关切。他们中的一些人有需要治疗的持续健康问题。工作组敦促巴林政府立即无条件释放所有五人，并确保他们得到医疗救治。
|
110. The Working Group is concerned about the physical and psychological health of the five individuals. Some of them have ongoing health issues that require treatment. The Working Group urges the Government to immediately and unconditionally release all five individuals and ensure that they receive medical care.
|
111. 据来文方称，当局限制这些人在最初被拘留期间与家人联系。尽管政府辩称这些指控不属实(见上文第 68 至 69 段)，但工作组提醒巴林政府，对与家人联络的任何限制，都违反《保护所有遭受任何形式拘留或监禁的人的原则》之原则
|
111. According to the source, the authorities restricted the ability of the individuals to contact their families during their initial detention. Although the Government argues that these allegations are untrue (see paras. 68–69 above), the Working Group reminds the Government that any restrictions on family contact violate principles 15, 16 (1) and 19 of the Body of Principles, rules 43 (3) and 58 (1) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules
|
30 第 59/2019 号意见，第 70 段；以及第 73/2019 号意见，第 91 段。
|
30 Opinions No. 59/2019, para. 70, and No. 73/2019, para. 91.
|
31 人权事务委员会，第 32 号一般性意见(2007 年)，第 41 段。
|
31 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 41.
|
32 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3，第 16 段。
|
32 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3, para. 16.
|
33 第 5/2020 号意见，第 86 段；以及第 41/2020 号意见，第 73 段。
|
33 Opinions No. 5/2020, para. 86, and No. 41/2020, para. 73.
|
15、16(1)及 19、《联合国囚犯待遇最低限度标准规则》(《纳尔逊·曼德拉规则》)之规则 43(3)和 58(1)及《儿童权利公约》第三十七条第(C)款。
|
for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and article 37 (c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
|
112. 在本案上，包括三名未成年人在内的被告人被判处五年至无期徒刑。工作组关切地注意到，这些重刑并非旨在使他们重新融入社会。34
|
112. The defendants in this case, including the three minors, have been sentenced to prison terms ranging from five years to life imprisonment and the Working Group notes with concern that these heavy sentences were not directed at reintegrating them.34
|
113. 本案是近年来提交工作组的涉及巴林任意拘留的几起案件之一。35 在某些情况下，违反国际法规则的广泛或系统性监禁或其他严重剥夺自由的行为，可能构成危害人类罪。36
|
113. The present case is one of several brought before the Working Group in recent years concerning arbitrary detention in Bahrain. 35 Under certain circumstances, widespread or systematic imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of the rules of international law may constitute crimes against humanity.36
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.