|
A new episode of violation of freedom of opinion and expression
One year imprisonment for journalist Amira Malash
|
7/2/2006
In light of the state's unjustified ignorance to the President's promise to annul prison sentences in publication cases, on Tuesday (2 / 7 / 2006) Giza Criminal Court issued a one year imprisonment verdict against Amira Malash, a journalist in Al-Fagr news paper, in case 1381 [2006]. In his testimony to the representative of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR), Nashaat Agha, the journalist's lawyer declared that the session in court didn't exceed seven minutes and the verdict was issued.
On this context, the Public Prosecution received an appeal signed by Judge Attia Mohamed Awad accusing journalist Amira Malash of defaming and slandering him by publishing an article in Al-Fagr newspaper, issue six (9 / 7/ 2006) entitled (Alexandria judge bribery, a fugitive escapes with ready-made clothing and 150000 LE). Accordingly, EOHR's fact-finding mission stated that Malash was summoned before the Public Prosecution for investigation on (31 / 12 / 2005), where she confirmed that the article references relied on State Security Prosecution's investigation in Case 696 [2005].
Despite EOHR's full respect to the Egyptian judiciary verdicts, it calls for complete respect to freedom of opinion and expression, and denounces the state laws which violates the right to freedom of opinion and expression and prison sentences in publication cases in addition to repeating the same scenario of issuing violent imprisonment verdicts on journalists, besides continuous investigations in publication cases which counter press freedom in Egypt.
Though, EOHR calls upon President Mubarak to fulfil the pledge of annulling prison sentences in publication cases and to promote the government to present a draft law to People's Assembly in order to amend the recent law of issuing prison verdicts against journalists in defaming and slandering crimes.
Finally, EOHR calls upon the government again to annul prison sentences in publication cases in respect to journalists and press freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and international covenants of freedom of opinion and expression. In order to punish the objective journalist, the government should imposes fines, while on the other hand the blasphemed has the right of repaying in the same newspaper and calling for compensation before the civil court, if the journalist exceeded his legal limits.
|
|
