15 May 2006

Statement by the EIPR on the Decision to Suspend the Ruling to Recognize the Baha’i Faith in Official Documents

 

The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) issued the following statement after the decision by the Appeals Inspection Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court today to suspend the implementation of the ruling issued by the Administrative Court on 4 April 2006, granting Baha’i Egyptians the right to have their faith recognized in their official identification documents:

While the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) is disappointed by the decision to suspend the Administrative Court ruling pending the government’s appeal, it is important to note that the Supreme Administrative Court has yet to decide on the merits of the case. The first substantive hearing is scheduled to take place on 19 June 2006.

The EIPR regrets the decision of the Court today not to grant the requests of the defense team representing the Baha’i Egyptian family which had filed the original lawsuit (see EIPR press release on 6 April). The defense team, which includes a lawyer from the EIPR, requested a postponement of the decision on suspension until its members had a chance to study the brief submitted by the government’s representative and to submit a written rebuttal. The Court also denied the defense team’s request for a chance to study and respond to the documents submitted by numerous lawyers who asked to intervene in the lawsuit against the Baha’i plaintiffs during the hearing. Therefore, today’s decision was issued before the defense team had a chance to submit any written briefs or present its oral argument responding to the allegations and arguments of the government representative or the intervening lawyers. The EIPR insists that the initial views expressed by the six members of the Chamber on the merits of the case were shaped in the absence of any counterarguments by the Baha’i Egyptians’ legal representatives.

The EIPR also condemns the events that took place during today’s hearing in the presence of representatives from the media. Lawyers and other individuals seated in the courthouse interrupted and heckled defense counsel  each time they tried to address the court and yelled insults at them, calling them “infidels” and threatening them with physical violence during the hearing. Unable to impose order in the courtroom, the Court briefly adjourned the hearing before resuming the proceedings in camera.  When the hearing was adjourned, courthouse security officers refused to protect lawyers who were surrounded by members of the crowd, verbally threatened, pushed, shoved and not allowed to walk away from the area.