SIS: Amnesty International parts ways with Human Rights and sinks in the Sea of Politics

Amnesty International has posted a reply on its Arabic Facebook page to a statement released by the State Information Service on the 28th of September. SIS’s previous statement addressed a tweet posted by AI accusing the Egyptian authorities of restricting the right to freedom of movement by closing 4 Metro stations in Cairo on Friday the 27th of September.

Despite AI’s claim that its reply was to the SIS’s statement, it actually did not address its content and took advantage of the opportunity to keep throwing unfounded accusations and propagating false, unverified information regarding the situation in Egypt, SIS said.

It added that in this context it would like to clarify the following points:

AI’s Facebook post focused on marginal points in SIS’s statement, and it intentionally pulled away from its real purpose. The SIS’s statement made absolutely no comparison between Egypt and France, it rather offered examples of measures taken by some states (France & Britain) similar to those taken by Egypt and how AI reacted in these cases. It is truly astonishing that AI referenced an older statement of theirs released on the 26th of August 2019 regarding France, and oddly enough the statement never accused the French government of violating the right to freedom of movement as it did with Egypt. This proves that AI when tackling Egyptian affairs is still moved by its political inclinations rather than its supposed role as a human rights organization.

AI’s statement ignored the international legal text that the SIS used to support its previous response to AI’s tweet, and that is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 12 of ICCPR allows States to restrict the right to freedom of movement in certain cases including protecting national security and preserving public order, and this was reaffirmed by the Human Rights Committee in its 67th session (1999).

The conditions stipulated by article 12 of ICCPR were clearly present in the measures taken by Egypt, as calls for violence and incitement were circulated on social media outlets. Also, information of the possibility of killings and sabotage across the country was received. In fact, a number of military officers and soldiers lost their lives on this very day during counter-terrorism operations in some parts of North Sinai, and this proves what was presented by the SIS in this context. However, it seems that AI is moved by its political tendencies not its human rights message.

SIS stresses that like any other state whose constitution and law uphold the right to peaceful assembly, the Egyptian State respects this right which is constitutionally guaranteed after taking necessary measures stipulated by the competent law. Egypt like most countries carefully applies article 21 of the ICCPR in regulating the right to peaceful assembly through the law and part of the article reads No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. On the ground, the competent authorities had not received any notification for demonstrations from any political organizations, civil associations or citizens in accordance with Egyptian laws regulating protests over the past days; The explicit questions that the AI has to answer in this context are, Does the AI’s ignoring of legal Egyptian requirements regulating the right to peaceful assembly represent a clear bias or even encouragement of breaking the law which is stipulated by ICCPR? And does this mean that the AI is pushing the situation in Egypt to a state of “creative” or “uncreative” chaos to reach goals dictated by its political leanings and alliances?

AI insisted that the number of those arrested over the past few days exceeded 2,200, and it based this figure on figures released by local and international organizations that may be disguised under a human rights cover, while their core is surely politicized and carries enmity to the Egyptian government. On the other hand, AI completely ignored the official figures in the statement released by the Public Prosecutor, and here we invite AI to read the statement if they haven’t read it or reread in case they did so that they can get to know the nature of the circumstances surrounding the arrests, as these arrests were carried out in accordance with legal measures and they certainly cannot be considered arbitrary detention as AI claims. The Public Prosecutor’s statement said that around 1,000 suspects were questioned in the presence of their lawyers until last Thursday in accordance with the sound legal measures that come in agreement with the rights stipulated by the Egyptian constitution and the law. The prosecution is still undertaking the investigation to reach the truth along with the defense of the suspects, and will reach a final decision for each of them.

The same very real and vital questions are still being raised regarding the political motives of AI which insists on adopting a politicized narrative that serves the interests of political actors, some of which are opposed to the Egyptian government and others who carry out acts of terrorism against Egyptian citizens and institutions. By that, AI basically does away with long established traditions in the field of human rights that AI seems to be departing rapidly to sink in the world of politics where the Machiavellian concept of the ends justify the means prevails.