Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Information
Gdeim Izik trial
26th December 2016
23rd, 24th and 25th
January 2017
Isabel Loureno
Member of Fundacin Sahara Occidental
page 1/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
Table of contents
1 - Introduction pag. 3
2 - Background pag. 5
7 - Conclusion pag. 31
page 2/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
1 - Introduction
I attended the trial of the Gdeim Izik group in Morocco, Rabat, on the
26th of December 2016 and the second session on the 23rd, 24th and
25th of January 2017 accredited by Fundacin Sahara Occidental. I
was also an observer in the first trial of this Group in a Military court in
2013. The objective of my attendance was to evaluate whether or not
the trial against the group was a fair trial, according to national and
international standards. I am a Portuguese human rights activist and
attended several trials of Saharawi Political Prisoners, visited the
Saharawi refugee camps several times and in 2014 visited the
occupied territories of Western Sahara to evaluate the human rights
situation. In February 2015 the Moroccan authorities expelled me when
I arrived at El Aaiun airport (capital of Western Sahara) to attend the
trial of two Saharawi journalists. For the past 4 years I have issued
several reports on human rights in Western Sahara and the situation of
the Saharawi political prisoners.
The trial was postponed to January 23rd 2017 after 9 hours of hearings
in the Court of First Instance of Sale, Morocco, with the justification that
one of the defendants (Mohamed Ayoubi), currently on parole, was
not present.
The trial continued on the 23rd, 24th and 25th of January without Mr.
Ayoubi and the court decided to continue the proceedings on March
13th 2017. This is only a summary information of the
proceedings/session of the 26th of December 2016, 23rd, 24th and 25th
of January 2015, as well as information regarding the new judicial
page 4/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
process and background of the whole process.
The right to observe trials stems from the general right of all persons to
promote and secure the protection and realisation of human rights
and fundamental freedoms.
4th- The preliminary round phase of the crime, was converted into
the dominant and decisive part of the criminal process,
contaminating it in a serious and irremediable manner. The
accusation and justice administration system, regarding the proofs,
which might have been obtained illegally, is very defective. The
prisoners denounced sexual violations and tortures, as means of
obtaining confessions, which took place at the Royal Gendarmerie
police premises and amid the military and pro-military corps which
in fact operate in the Western Sahara, inflicted during weeks or
even months, and whose wounds were exhibited in court, during
the plenary and instruction phases, with many denounces, which
were not under investigation, as it was denied, including the oral
phase of the proving of such acts, and the possibility of their validity,
therefore giving place to FRAGILITY OF THE DEFENCE RIGHTS.
5th- The oral testimonies, were registered, years upon the taking
place of the acts, along with the inappropriate /unjustified
prolonging of detention, in police and penitentiary premises, amid
tortures, physical and psychological coercion, postponement of the
trial and keeping the defendants under protective imprisonment,
contrary to international conventions and the Moroccan law.
6th- Although over 2 years passed, since the 8th November 2010,
the date when the alleged acts took place, and the capacity and
preparation of both the security corps and forces, as well as the
Moroccan courts and judges, an ILL, INCOMPLETE, SLANTING AND
ILLEGAL INSTRUCTION was made. The inexistence within the process
of the identity and circumstances on the dead victims, inexistence
page 6/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
of forensic autopsies (an important item to determinate the cause
of death, the place, moment and circumstances); inexistence of
digital impression proofs and white weapons analysis, inexistence of
morphologic studies and identification in films, make us consider not
valid , in absolute, the dictated sentence. And once that none of
the defendants are identified in the presented films, the instruction
and supposed accusation proofs obtained in the instruction phase
and presented at the plenary, they are TOTALLY UNKNOWN
REGARDING THE DEFENDANTS, together with the manner the Kings
Procurator presented and formulated the accusation. The existence
at the time, of the violent dismantlement of the Gdeim Izik camp,
under siege, surrounded by numerous state effectives and
equipment (which included aerial means and at least five film
cameras), make the modus operandi inconsistent / incongruous,
reported by the accusation, with the reported facts, with plenty of
void and imprecisions, which made it absolutely impossible to
recognize who, how and when, provoked the death of victims and
if it was violent. (The crimes appointed by those condemned were
desecration of bodies, criminal and murder association).
page 7/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
page 8/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
conscience, meeting and association rights within the territory,
awaiting the decolonization from the United Nations and the
celebration of an auto determination referendum carried out by
the Saharawi people; and that the expression of political opinions
which are carried out during the exercise of civil rights, recognized
by the international treaties, subscribed by Morocco, are hindered.
page 9/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
constitute an inadmissible exercise of the power of state, which
played its direct influence on the justice process, deterring it.
The Civil Court's decision is dated July 27th 2016 and the prisoners were
informed on 18th October. The Moroccan judicial system, withheld this
information for 82 days.
The Moroccan Court of Cassation has quashed the decision from the
Military Court of Rabat in 2013. The Court Cassation referred the case
to the Tribunal de premiere Instance in Sal.
The group was transferred from prison Sale1 to El Arjat after this
decision, on August 31rd, the prisoners were brutally beaten and most
of their belongings were taken from them.
page 10/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
The new accusations are articles 1291, 1302, 2673, 2714, 2935 and 2946 of
the Moroccan penal code.
1 Article 129
Sont considrs comme complices d'une infraction qualifie crime ou dlit ceux qui,sans
participation directe cette infraction, ont :
1 Par dons, promesses, menaces, abus d'autorite ou de pouvoir, machinations ou artifices
coupables, provoqu cette action ou donn des instructions pour la commettre;
2 Procur des armes, des instruments ou tout autre moyen qui aura servi l'action sachant
qu'ils devaient y servir;
3 Avec connaissance, aid ou assist l'auteur ou les auteurs de l'action, dans les faits qui l'ont
prpare ou facilite;
4 En connaissance de leur conduite criminelle, habituellement fourni logement, lieu de retraite
ou de runions un ou plusieurs malfaiteurs exerant des brigandages ou des violences contre la
surete de l'tat, la paix publique, les personnes ou les proprits. La complicite n'est jamais
punissable en matire de contravention.
2 Article 130
Le complice d'un crime ou d'un dlit est punissable de la peine rprimant ce crime ou ce dlit.
Les circonstances personnelles d'o rsultent aggravation, attnuation ou exemption de peine
n'ont d'effet qu' l'gard du seul participant auquel elles se rapportent.
Les circonstances objectives, inhrentes l'infraction, qui aggravent ou diminuent la peine,
mme si elles ne sont pas connues de tous ceux qui ont particip cette infraction, ont effet leur
charge ou en leur faveur.
3 Article 267
Est puni de l'emprisonnement de trois mois deux ans, quiconque commet des violences ou
voies de fait envers un magistrat, un fonctionnaire public, un commandant ou agent de la force
publique dans l'exercice de ses fonctions ou l'occasion de cet exercice.
Lorsque les violences entranent effusion de sang, blessure ou maladie, ou ont lieu soit avec
prmditation ou guet-apens, soit envers un magistrat ou un assesseur-jur l'audience d'une
cour ou d'un tribunal, l'emprisonnement est de deux cinq ans.
Lorsque les violences entranent mutilation, amputation, privation de l'usage d'un membre,
ccite , perte dil ou autre infirmite permanente, la peine encourue est la rclusion de dix vingt
ans.
Lorsque les violences entranent la mort, sans intention de la donner, la peine encourue est la
rclusion de vingt trente ans.
Lorsque les violences entranent la mort, avec l'intention de la donner, la peine encourue est la
mort.
Le coupable, condamn une peine d'emprisonnement peut, en outre, tre frapp de
l'interdiction de sjour pour une dure de deux cinq ans.
4 Article 271
Toute association ou entente, quels que soient sa dure et le nombre de ses membres, forme ou
tablie dans le but de prparer ou de commettre des crimes contre les personnes ou les
proprits, constitue le crime d'association de malfaiteurs qui existe par le seul fait de la
rsolution d'agir arrte en commun.
6 Article 294
Est puni de la rclusion de cinq a dix ans, tout individu faisant partie de l'association ou entente dfinie
a l'article prcdent.
La rclusion est de dix a vingt ans pour les dirigeants de l'association ou de l'entente ou pour ceux qui y
ont exerce un commandement quelconque.
page 11/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
Accusations:
page 12/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
Mohamed Lahbib Rguibi, Dalil Bourdin, Bazid Lhmad, Naima Lgallaf,
Mohamed Lamskam, Abid Eddin and Mohamed Sadko
Two weeks before the trial of the 26th of December 2016, the
Moroccan media started a "campaign" in which the main goal was to
identify the Gdeim Izik Group as common criminals and not political
prisoners and activists.
On at least two talk shows it was even mentioned that if the prisoners
would not "misbehave" in court and not entering chanting political
slogans and wearing their traditional clothing their sentences could be
reduced. The media is overflowing of propaganda since the weeks
following up to the first trial session and continues; portraying the
accused as terrorists and violent killers. The prosecution actually
litigates in the media.
Outside the courthouse the Families and friends of the prisoners who
were not permitted to enter gathered in a demonstration that was
surrounded by police, on the other side was a very large group of
Moroccans, which supported the families of the alleged victims.
Entering the courthouse all observers had to give their cell phones,
computers and ipads to police agents that "guarded" them until the
end of the trial. The observers had to pass three "check points" and
undergo body search and pass under a scanning device identical to
the ones used in airports.
During the second session of the trial on January 23rd, 24th and 25th of
2017, the same restrictions were applied to the international observers,
increasing the security measures with body search. Two "changing
room" cabins were placed at the entry of the court where police
women made the security check and body search of all female
observers. The Journalists and Moroccan civilians did not to have to
undergo body search.
page 13/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
Also plastic water bottles were forbidden to some observers, not all and
the Moroccan lawyers of the "civil part" were allowed to have water.
On the second day my water bottle was taken away by an
intelligence agent which told me it was for security reasons, when I
pointed to the water bottles standing in front of the defence lawyers of
the alleged Moroccan victims he didn't remove them.
page 14/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
Mr. Sidi Mohamed Balla, translator accredited by Fundacin Sahara
Occidental was never allowed to enter the court, he was told by the
security officer in the outside checkpoint: "not even in your dreams will
you enter!!"
On the 25th of January at the end of the trial session at 23h00, the
observers accredited by Fundacin Sahara Occidental, Mrs. Tone
Sorfonn Moe, Mrs. Rosario Garcia Diaz, our translator, Mrs. Leila Fakhouri
and myself were followed by a police van until arriving at one of the
family houses where we were headed to interview the wives and
children of the defendants. We were told that it was not a "safe" place
to be.
The Norwegian observers Hans Inge Alander and Diego A. Vaula Foss
travelled on Wednesday (January 26th) to El Aaiun, which is the capital
of Western Sahara. They were stopped at the airport, and transported
back to the airport in Casablanca. They were detained at the airport
for three days, whereas they were without food and water on the first
day. It is believed that the reason for their expulsion is their attendance
at the trial for the Group Gdeim Izik, since other human rights activists
that were expelled, but did not attend the trial, were not treated as
badly as these two observers.
page 15/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
5 - Court proceedings/trial 26th December 2016, 23rd, 24th
and 25th of January 2017
At 10h00, in the court of first instance of Sal, Morocco began the new
trial of the Gdeim Izik Group.
Since this Group was detained during and in the aftermath of the
Gdeim Izik Camp in 2010 in Western Sahara, a non-autonomous
territory, this was once again an extraterritorial trial.
Immediately they were placed in a "glass cage room" where they were
kept isolated and without being able to hear what was said in the
courtroom.
Only several hours later and after strong complaint from the defence
lawyers the prisoners were allowed to stay in a line between their
lawyers and so be able to follow the proceedings. Most of the prisoners
weren't able to stand up in a line due to health conditions and they
were not given a chair, which meant that they had to remain inside
the "glass cage".
The courtroom was full of Moroccan police, plain cloth agents, some
Moroccan civilians and over 20 international observers (from Spain,
France, Italy, Germany, Norway and Portugal). The families of the
prisoners were not allowed to enter the court as well as the Saharawi
translators, who although they had accreditation, were prohibited to
enter.
Two French lawyers (Mr. Joseph Breham and Mrs. Ingrid Metton) had
page 16/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
an authorization from the Ministry of justice, in accordance with the
agreement between France and Morocco, to participate as defence
lawyers of Mr. Naama Asfari.
The proceeding was extremely hard to follow since all lawyers were
standing in the front rows and the translation cabins (English, French
and Spanish) were placed at the back of the room preventing the
translators to see who spoke, and since there was no order nor did the
persons who spoke identify themselves the translators were unable to
identify the speakers turning the whole process inefficient. Also the
quality of translation, especially the Spanish one, was very poor.
1 - The first question that the court raised was related to partial status
for the lawyer advocating on behalf of the alleged victims (hereinafter
"the civil party")
Also there was a debate about taxes that should be paid by these
lawyers.
There was no conclusion on this point, and the presiding judge
informed that he would transmit his decision to both parts before the
23rd of January.
page 17/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
The president of the court invoked that a party that didnt participate
in the first instance, could not be a part in the appeal. Furthermore, the
judge claimed that the international lawyers didnt have the sufficient
knowledge of the Moroccan legal system.
The court invoked that international law does not prevail Moroccan
law, and furthermore that the Moroccan legal system was in
correlation with its international obligations. In that regard, the court
didnt have to emphasize the international treaties.
3 - If the international observers who are lawyers may or may not use
the Toga in the courtroom, although they are not part of the defence.
The conclusion of this discussion wasn't translated, but no lawyer took
off his/her toga
page 18/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
in detention (art. 16).
The presiding judge interrupted him constantly and declared that this
decision had no bearing on the guarantees necessary for provisional
release.
Mrs. Ingrid Metton said she would speak on behalf of all defendants
but was reminded by the judge that she was only there to speak on
behalf of Mr. Asfari. Nevertheless Mrs. Metton pointed out that the
conditions for the prisoners to attend and participate at the trial were
not met since there were no chairs and their health was fragile, as well
as the fact that the "glass cage" hindered them to hear what was said.
Some of the local defence lawyers (Mr. Massoudi, Mr. Liili and Mr.
Rguibi) argued that the right of a defendant person to provisional
release pending trial is a corollary of the presumption of innocence,
and is widely recognised in international human rights instruments.
It was argued that the prisoners on trial are innocent, and that one
cannot speak about a fair trial when 21 innocent men have been
imprisoned for 6 years. Furthermore, the defence argued that the
defendants are imprisoned based on a decision that is null and void.
The prisoners are not proven guilty, and their right to be regarded as
innocent until proven guilty is severely violated. Furthermore, the
defence argued, a continued imprisonment violates the right to
freedom.
They stated that the defendants have all the guarantees necessary
and demanded under Moroccan law. They also referred to the
arbitrary detention and the circumstances of arrest of the defendants
that were a clear violation of the law.
The defence also claimed that the defendants are political prisoners
that were in negotiations with the Moroccan government during the
protest camp Gdeim Izik. It was argued that all of the defendants are
peaceful political activist that promote human rights and the right to
life, and therefore condemn the loss of life.
page 19/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
to end this ordeal and that the defendants were ready to come to the
court every day, so that they could prove their innocence; both to the
Moroccan government and the people.
The trial ended at 19h00. The prisoners existed the courtroom as they
entered chanting political slogans for self-determination of Western
Sahara.
There was no break for lunch and the whole proceeding lasted over
nine hours with only a few breaks of minutes that where justified with
"technical problems" and preceded always a decision to be taken by
the judge.
I entered the courtroom at 8h45 at 8h50 the police in plain clothes (28
at that time) were ordered to occupy the front rows in order to leave
only the back rows empty. Myself, Mrs. Garcia Diaz, Mrs. Tone Moe and
our translator Mrs. Fakhouri were able to seat in the 4th row.
At 10:45 the presiding judge, followed by five other judges, entered the
courtroom and stated: "In the name of the king we open this court".
The defendants were brought into court in two groups. The first group
came and shouted Labadil Labadil Antakrir Al Massir (there is no
solution other than self-determination). The second group did not
come in and the president called for them. They shouted "torture
torture torture" through the open door. They came into the courtroom.
Later on it was explained that they were brought to court at 4 o'clock
in the morning and kept in a freezing room in the basement.
page 20/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
Although the defence asked for chairs for the defendants in order for
them to seat in front of the judge and properly accompany the
proceedings, this was not granted and they were put in the glass cage.
The judge informed that there were "speakers" inside the cage, but it
was clear that they could not properly follow the proceedings due to
lack of order in the court room, the constant interruptions and shouting,
as well as the fact that most time the active parts did not use the
microphone.
At 11h45 The judge informed that there was another room and since
apparently there was not room enough in this room, observers and
families should move to the room next door which had a big Screen
and according to him had all the conditions to follow the trial and that
this was the reason for the presence of cameras in the courtroom.
The court decided that Ayoubi's case should be separated from the
rest until March 13, 2017, and later be merged with the rest of the
group's cause.
The defence Lawyer Mr. Massoudi informed the judge that the
defendants had been awoken at 4h00 and held in the basement of
the courtroom until the start of the proceedings, where it was bitterly
cold.
Most of the time translation was not available since no one spoke into
the microphones there was no order in the room and shouting was the
method of communication.
page 21/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
He called Naama Asfari who called out that they still did not have
writing material and that the police officer said that the pen could be
used as a weapon.
The discussion went on between the judge, the defence, the attorney
general and the lawyers of the civil part who took part of the
procedures and spoke whenever they wanted although they are not
part in the process. The judge demanded to see the documents that
Mr. Asfari had in his possession, his notes on the case and to be shown
also to the Attorney general.
The Attorney General shouted, "I can see all the documents!"
There was a short break and the defendants had to exit the courtroom.
After the break the defendants refused to come back into the
courtroom due to the fact that they were not given their pencils and
notebooks back. The court ruled that the prisoners were to be given, in
total, three pens and three pieces of papers (in comparison; I wrote
out three notebooks and Mrs. Tone Sorfonn Moe two note books,
during these proceedings). Furthermore, the prisoners could only keep
paper that were in compliance with the case put forward and that
were relevant for the proceedings. The president would therefore go
through all the documents. The judge pointed out that this was a
security reason where the prisoners could easily kill someone with a
pen (to be noted that all defendants use writing material inside the
prison on a daily basis for over three years and the question of security
was never raised).
page 22/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
Defence argued that they needed more time to prepare their defence
since some of them had not been able to meet their clients, despite
repeated requests to both prison and prosecution. Defence was
granted a postponement until 10:00 the next day. The judge stated:
"you wanted 24hours, I give you 24hours until 10:00 tomorrow". The time
was 17:40.
I entered the courtroom at 8h45, the seven front rows were reserved for
the lawyers. On the right side of the court the rows after the lawyers
were reserved for the Moroccan families. The observers would have to
seat in the back. In the room there were 5 video cameras and
Moroccan journalists and intelligence agents with cameras.
Naama Asfari requested his pen and paper back, which were taken
away from him the prior day. He shouted, My pen is my weapon, my
words are my weapon.
The president repeated his ruling, and declared that Naama should be
given his pen, and a few pieces of paper. Naama refused to receive
the pen and paper, since his request concerned all the prisoners, and
not just himself. He declared that all the prisoners are entitled to pen
and papers so they would be able to follow the proceedings
adequately.
From the "glass cage" Cheij Banga shouted "this is a court room not a
police station! Don't touch my sister!!!" Shouting broke out and the
courtroom was in turmoil. Mr. Banga's sister was improperly touched by
one the police agents in the room, Cheij Banga saw this from the glass
cage.
page 23/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
After a period of shouting and turmoil and shouts from the judge
calling for order the proceedings continued.
The next question raised was whether the civil party was to be given a
partial status in the proceedings. It was highlighted that the civil party
was given the case papers, without being a formal part of the
proceedings.
The lawyers of the civil part argued for their case for approximately
three hours, without interruptions. The civil party claimed that article 14
of the ICCPR also entails to a fair trial for the victims, whereas the
victims are entitled to defend their right in front of these murderers.
The civil party argued that the Group Gdeim Izik are tyrants and
brutal murderers which were extremely dangerous. They said that the
"poor victims, the police officers that were murdered, had no guns or
other means to defend themselves when they were murdered". The
victims should be entitled to face the culprits. The civil party further
argued that the Kingdom of Morocco was entitled to judge their
equals, whereas the great Kingdom of Morocco was superior and had
the jurisdiction to judge. The presiding judge not once interrupted them
to prevent the use of these kind of adjectives, and allowed the use of
words like "murderers", "tyrants", "assassins" and "criminals", not
preserving the basic notion of innocent until proven guilty.
The defence for the accused argued that the victims are protected
through the prosecution. The prosecution as a public office, that
protects the common interest, whereas the civil and the criminal case
should be separated. The defence of the accused argued that a
victims right for compensation is first and foremost relevant after the
culprit is taken.
During the afternoon Mr. Deich Daff, had to be removed from the glass
cage and attended by a paramedical, he is a diabetic and due to the
long time without eating and the stress had a sugar crash, he was
given insulin.
page 24/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
At 8h20 Myself, Mrs. Tone Moe and our translator Mrs. Leila Fakhouri
arrived at the court house. I entered whilst Mrs. Moe stayed to argue
with the police officers since they did not want to allow Mrs. Fakhouri to
enter, due to the fact that she is Saharawi, as they stated.
As soon as I entered the court room (first person to arrive) a plain cloth
agent called for other police agents to occupy as many seats as
possible in the front rows and mark the seats for the Moroccan families.
Defence Lawyer Lilli pointed out some main issues that should be dealt
with by the judge: The fact that the accused still didn't have any writing
material; the threats made against Abdallahi Sbaai, the brother of the
accused Ahmed Sbaai, inside the court house; the fact that Mrs.
Claude Mangin, french citizen and wife of Mr. Naama Asfari was
expelled from the country and had no authorization to attend her
husbands trial and finally the fact that some members of ASVDH (a
Saharawi organization legalized by the Moroccan government) were
not allowed to enter the court house to attend the proceedings.
The Judge stated that he had no jurisdiction outside the room of the
trial and that he was only a presiding judge.
After Mr. Zeyou, one of the accused who is in liberty, handed out a
paper to his attorney, the judge ordered Mr. Zeyou and Mr. Machdoufi
(both in freedom with time served but accused again) to seat in the
back of the room.
The defence lawyer Lilli, argued that Mrs. Mangin does not represent a
threat, has an income since she is a French public servant and also has
a return ticket. He also repeated that 3 pens for 21 accused is not fair
and that these pens do not represent a danger, he also addressed the
fact that in a public hearing you cannot prevent people form enter the
court house.
page 25/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
The Judge once again said he was trying to conduct a fair trial, three
pens was all he had to offer, if he had more pens he would offer more,
and that the courtroom had open doors, what happened outside the
courtroom is not his business.
Inside the glass cage the prisoners shouted: "Viva POLISARIO; Viva
Independence!" Mr. Boutanguiza shouted in Spanish: "We want the
referendum!" Mr. Abdallahi Abahah shouted: "We are here because
we defend our right to self-determination."
The presiding judge remained ignorant to the fact that the French
attorneys were prohibited from presenting their case.
The French lawyers wanted to leave the room since they were not
allowed to present their arguments, but the Judge told them that he
did not give authorization and that they should respect the court.
The civil party literally screamed out that the great kingdom of
Morocco has the supremacy over Western Sahara, and that the ID
cards of the Saharawi prove that they are Moroccans (all Saharawi are
forced to have a Moroccan name - their names are changed- and
forced to have a Moroccan ID card violating thus the right to their
identity). The civil party claimed that the French attorneys had no
respect for the Kingdom of Morocco or this courtroom.
The presiding judge claimed that the international conventions are not
legal instruments in his courtroom, and furthermore claimed that they
could not be forwarded as evidence in his courtroom, referring to the
CAT decision and the report of the Working Group for Arbitrary
Detention of the UN.
page 26/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
Mr. Abdejalil Laaroussi had to be assisted by a medical team, after
having abundant nose bleeding. (Mr. Laaroussi suffers from daily nose
bleeding due to extreme high blood pressure and rectorragia and
diarrhoea due to the type of torture he was submitted to).
The defence lawyer informed the judge that the Moroccan family
members were menacing the Saharawi families and that they also
insulted the accused inside the courtroom, he said: "they are terrorizing
the accused and their families".
The judge answered that he could not use the word terrorism, since he
was in a nation of peace and were the law is followed.
The prosecution argued that torture had never taken place, and that
claims about torture had never been forwarded from the prisoners. The
prosecution furthermore argued that the court had to trust public
officials, in which they were doing their job according to the law.
Regarding the CAT decision on the case of Naama Asfari, the
prosecution argued that Naama had never been tortured. The
prosecutor claimed that the fact that Naama wouldnt go with two
police officers for examination proved that he was only making false
accusations.
(Naama Asfari had, after the CAT decision, been approached by two
police officers inside the prison who wanted him to come with them to
Casablanca. Naama Asfari refused because he wanted his defence
attorneys to be present at the examination.)
The civil party supported the defence of the accused in their request
for both witnesses and medical examinations, but claimed that all the
documentations had to be put forward as evidence.
page 27/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
5.4.1 - Veredict:
The court ruled that the Tribunal de Premiere Instance in Sal was
competent and had necessary jurisdiction.
The court ruled that the defence for the accused could present
all of the witnesses, excluding the Moroccan authorities that had
been in negotiations with the Gdeim Izik dialogue committee.
Excluding a former minister and a MP, although they are no
longer in function. Thus, the police and gendarmerie officers who
drafted the minutes (documents relating to the arrest and
custody), were convened.
page 28/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
manner it pleased them although they are not formal part of the
process. The fact that the sessions lasted up to twelve hours almost
continuously did not help in any way to make the work more efficient.
Furthermore
the defendants were not able, most of the time, to hear what was
said during the sessions, due to the fact that the "glass cage" where
they were placed, did not have any headphones or earpieces. They
were deprived of their pens and papers and could not take notes
from their own proceedings. The prisoners were not able to hear, or
contribute in any way, in favour of their own defence. For this reason,
the right to adequate defence is to be regarded as violated.
-the defendants have not yet been proven guilty. Their right to be
regarded as innocent parties until proven otherwise has thus been
severely violated.
since the accused are not yet proven guilty, the civil and the criminal
case should be separated, whereas the victims should seek
compensation after the accused have been proven guilty, that
means that the civil party should not take part in the proceedings of
this trial.
page 29/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
guarantees demanded by Moroccan law were met and several
international bodies and mechanisms of the UN, the most recent
being the decision of CAT, refer to the arbitrary detention and lack of
evidence other than confessions obtained under torture, therefore this
constitutes a breach in the right to freedom (detention without
judgement, and since the previous judgement is null and void, that is
a violation of the right to freedom);
although the defendants did not give their permission, journalists and
photographers, as well as video cameras were present during the
entire trial and images were taken and published. This is a violation of
the right to privacy;
the defence of the accused had not been given access to see the
full contents of the case file. To not be able to see the content of the
case file is a clear breach of the principle of equality.
page 30/31
Information Gdeim Izik Trial -
26th December 2016; 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2017
Isabel Loureno
the defence of the accused was not allowed to speak as freely as the
civil party. The defence of the accused were directly prohibited from
mentioning political issues, Gdeim Izik camp, or the question upon
jurisdiction. Whereas the lawyers of the civil part said whatever they
wanted, at one point one of them said to a Saharawi lawyer: Don't
stand too close to me! I am afraid of you! Thank God I wasn't at the
Gdeim Izik camp - if I was - I would be dead too. It was clear that the
discrimination was based on race and national origin.
7 - Conclusion
Isabel Loureno
Human Rights Activist
Member of Fundacin Sahara Occidental
page 31/31