92001E1661

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1661/01

by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Imprisonment of an Egyptian-US sociologist

In Cairo on 21 May 2001 the eminent Egyptian-US sociologist Saad Eddin Ibrahim was given a seven-year prison sentence by the State Security Court. He was jailed immediately.

The same court has sentenced a further 27 employees of the equally prestigious Ibn Yaldun Centre for Social Development Studies to prison terms ranging from one to five years.

Both the Centre and Professor Ibrahim have spent many years protecting human rights, democracy and intellectual freedom.

The main accusation levelled against President Ibrahim (who holds dual Egyptian and US nationality) is based on the fact that the Ibn Yaldun Centre accepted $250 000 of aid from the Commission, some of which was used in order to produce a film which criticises fraudulent activities in Egyptian elections.

In view of the important work done by Professor Ibrahim and the Centre's employees in support of democracy and human rights and the existence of the abovementioned EU aid, has the Commission taken (or is it intending to take) any action to help those who have been sentenced under such a bizarre judgment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

Both 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 Community funds allocated to an education for democracy project managed by Dr Ibrahim, the Union 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 Community funds for such projects was entirely proper, and was covered by the Community-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 Union made an 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 (this declaration is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat).

The Court is obliged to explain the reasons for its verdict within 30 days of sentence and the convicted have limited rights of appeal on procedural grounds. 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.