From : mail@vob.org
Sent : Friday, June 9, 2006 11:44 PM
To : arabtimesnewspaper@hotmail.com
Subject : Letter to His Majesty Shaikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa on the Amendments to Law 18 (1973) on Public Gatherings


Letter to His Majesty Shaikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa on the Amendments to Law
18 (1973) on Public Gatherings
June 8, 2006

His Majesty Shaikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa
Office of His Majesty the King
Rifa’a Palace
Kingdom of Bahrain

Your Highness:

We are writing to express concern regarding the draft law governing public
meetings and demonstrations, known as Amendments to Law 18/1973. It is our
understanding that the Majlis al-Nawwab and the Legislative Committee of the
Majlis al-Shura have reviewed and approved this draft, and that the full Majlis
al-Shura is expected to do the same in the near future, before sending it to
Your Highness for final approval.

This is, to our knowledge, the first significant human rights-related
legislation under consideration since Bahrain was elected to the United Nations
Human Rights Council. Human Rights Watch believes that the law as presently
drafted has the potential to undermine rather than protect the right of peaceful
assembly as codified in Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR). While Bahrain is not yet a state party to the ICCPR,
the Cabinet in May 2005 reportedly approved ratification of the treaty and
authorized preparation of a draft law to that effect. We strongly urge you not
to approve this draft law, and recommend instead that you instruct the relevant
officials in the ministries of justice and interior to revise this law to bring
it in line with Article 21 of the ICCPR.

Your Highness and other high government officials have declared on many
occasions that Bahrain is committed to becoming a more democratic society.
Freedom of assembly is a core component of any democratic order, as it is
essential to the process of forming political opinions and articulating them in
a public setting, and to the principle of popular participation in public
affairs.

Article 21 of the ICCPR allows some restrictions on the exercise of the right of
peaceful assembly, namely those necessary for the protection of national
security or public safety, public order, public health or morals, and the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others. It is a fundamental principle
in applying limitations to protected human rights that the government specify
the objective of the limitation, and that the limitation not jeopardize the
essence of the right in question.

The text of Amendments to Law 18/1973 enumerates restrictions on the right to
peaceful assembly without indicating the purpose of the restrictions, in a
manner that undermines this right, as follows:


Article 2 (a) requires that persons wishing to organize a public meeting or
demonstration notify the head of Public Security at least three days in advance.
The draft makes no distinction between public demonstrations, where prior
notification is reasonable in order to arrange for traffic control or police
protection of demonstrators, and public meetings in an enclosed space, where
such concerns are not relevant. The draft indicates no reason for requiring
prior notification for such meetings. With regard to public demonstrations or
rallies, where some prior notification requirement is reasonable, the three-day
requirement seems excessive. It is not clear why a shorter prior notification –
for example, 24 hours – would not be adequate to meet legitimate public order
and safety concerns.


Article 4 requires that the authorities notify the organizers of an event of a
decision to ban that event at least two days prior to its scheduled occurrence.
The draft law however does not require that the authorities specify the reasons
for which they are banning the event, or what constitute legitimate grounds for
banning an event. The burden of justifying a limitation on any basic human right
rests with the state.


Article 4 states that the organizers of a banned event can appeal the ruling
within 15 days of receiving the ban, “in front of a specialized court which will
rule on an urgent basis.” The law does not indicate the composition of this
court, or provide any assurance that it will be independent of the executive.
Neither does it specify what it means by “urgent.”


Article 5 states that “special permission” is necessary for public gatherings
between 11:30 p.m. and 7 a.m. There is no indication of why the needed
permission in this instance is “special.” Nor is there any indication of why the
requirement for prior notification of public meetings is not confined to these
night-time hours, with no prior notification necessary for events scheduled for
day and evening hours.


Article 6 states that every public event must be organized and run by a
committee of at least three members that is responsible for, among other things,
“forbidding any speech or discussion infringing on public order or morals.” The
draft law leaves “public order or morals” undefined, inviting the authorities to
restrict the rights to free expression and freedom of peaceful assembly at will.


Article 7 authorizes police presence at any public meeting, and authorizes the
police to break up a public meeting if, among other things, “a crime, listed in
the Penal or other active codes, was committed during the meeting.” Bahrain’s
Penal Code, and perhaps other “active codes” as well, still contains provisions
that do not comport with international human rights standards governing basic
civil and political rights, particularly in the areas of freedom of expression
and freedom of association. This draft law thus may authorize security officials
to disrupt public meetings solely in response to persons exercising or
advocating the exercise of basic civil and political rights.


Article 8 authorizes the head of public security to determine that a meeting is
public rather than private and thus subject to police presence on the basis of,
among other things, “its subject… or any other circumstance.”


Article 10 prohibits the participation of non-citizens in demonstrations,
processions, “and meetings with a political purpose.” The ICCPR does not allow
states parties to make the right of aliens or non-citizens to freedom of
assembly subject to special restrictions. On the contrary, the U.N. Human Rights
Committee, the body that monitors state compliance with the ICCPR and provides
authoritative interpretation of the Covenant, has stated unequivocally that
“aliens receive the benefits of the right of peaceful assembly” and that “there
shall be no discrimination between aliens and citizens” in the application of
basic rights.


Article 10 also prohibits, without explanation, “demonstrations for election
purposes.” The right to freedom of assembly, like the associated rights to
freedom of expression and freedom of association, are crucial to a democratic
order in general and to free and fair elections in particular.


Your Highness, for the reasons enumerated, we believe that the draft law known
as Amendments to Law 18/1973 is seriously flawed and should not become law. The
draft law renders the right to freedom of assembly subject to the arbitrary
determination of security officials and the government, and contains elements
that directly contradict the right to freedom of expression. The draft law is
distinctly incompatible with your declared intention that Bahrain move towards a
more democratic political order. Specifically, the draft law is at odds with
Article 21 of the ICCPR, which your government has declared it intends to
ratify.

For these reasons, we urge you to refrain from signing this draft into law, and
instead instruct the appropriate officials in the ministries of justice and
interior to prepare a draft that meets Bahrain’s international human rights
obligations and reflects your aspirations for a more democratic Bahrain.

We look forward to your positive response to these recommendations.

Sincerely,
Sarah Leah Whitson
Executive Director

cc: His Excellency Ambassador Naser Al Belooshi, Embassy of the Kingdom of
Bahrain, Washington, DC