92001E1784

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1784/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Sentence passed on Professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim

On 21 May 2001, Professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim was sentenced to seven years in prison by an Egyptian State Security Court which ruled that his efforts to ensure the parliamentary elections were monitored were defamatory to the State. Professor Ibrahim had been arrested the previous July when the Ibn Khaldoun Study Centre of which he was the director began holding courses on voter education and training for monitors of last Autumn's parliamentary elections.

The public prosecutor challenged the use to which the Ibn Khaldoun Study Centre had put Commission funds of USD 250 000, with which it had produced a documentary film on electoral fraud in the last election and constructed imitation voting booths to simulate voting during the voter education courses organised in the run-up to the elections. 27 members of staff of the Ibn Khaldoun Study Centre were convicted in addition to Professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim, thus effectively closing down one of the most prestigious institutes of political science in the Arab world.

Was the Commission aware that Professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim had been imprisoned? What are the Commission's views on the conviction by a third country of persons engaged in activities funded by the Commission? What steps does the Commission intend to take to defend Professor Ibrahim and his staff and protect them against the risks incurred by engaging in activities encouraged and funded by the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2001)

The Presidency and the Commission have closely followed developments with respect to the charges levelled against Dr Ibrahim and his associates. When he and some of his colleagues were initially arrested and held without charge, appropriate channels were used to make clear the Union's concern at their detention without charge and at the highly charged and speculative press campaign which risked compromising any chance of a fair trial.

When Dr Ibrahim and his colleagues were released and subsequently charged, inter alia, with misusing Union funds allocated to an education for democracy project managed by Dr Ibrahim, the EC made a clear and public statement to the effect that the project concerned had been subject to normal monitoring and audit procedures; and these had given no cause for concern. In addition the Commission Delegation in Cairo made clear that the use of Union funds for such projects was entirely proper, and was covered by the Union-Egypt Framework Agreement on the implementation of Financial and Technical Co-operation.

During the present trial, the Union registered its concern that the defence should have proper access to documentary evidence and that the proceedings should follow due legal process. Union observers have attended the trial throughout and they, together with many others, were disturbed at the manner, the timing, and the severity of the sentences on all the accused, and especially on Dr Ibrahim. The Commission made a strong oral statement (23 May 2001) and the Union presidency issued a declaration (25 May 2001) to the effect that the Union was deeply disturbed by the harsh sentences handed down by the Egyptian Supreme State Security Court (a text is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat).

The Court was obliged to explain the reasons for its verdict within 30 days of sentence and has just done so. The Commission is presently studying them. Those convicted have limited rights of appeal on procedural grounds and are considering their position. It goes without saying that the next steps in this affair will be closely studied in the hope and expectation that the situation will be resolved in the best traditions of the Egyptian legal system.