|
The Administrative Judiciary Court Postpones deciding on EOHR's Challenge to the Minister of Interior's Decision till 13/6/2006
|
13/6/2006
The Administrative Judicial Court decided to postpone reviewing the challenge presented by the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights against the Minister of Interior's decision that bans any peaceful demonstrations without a permission.
The hearing was rescheduled to take place on 13/6/2006, while the first hearing took place on 23/5/2006 when EOHR challenged the Minister's decision issued on 18/5/2006 which bans any assembly or demonstration in front of the Supreme Judicial House.
Its worth mentioning that a delegation from the Bar Association joined the EOHR defense, this delegation included Mr. Mohamed Toson, Mr. Abdul Moneim Abdul Maksood and Mr. Gamal Tag.
Hafez Abu Seada, the secretary general of EOHR and a lawyer, amended the original lawsuit to be presenting himself as a citizen and lawyer rather than representing the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. Abu Seada and the other lawyers joined EOHR team argued that the Minister's decision contradicts with the Egyptian Constitution which grants the rights to peaceful assembly.
Furthermore, the Minister's decision contradicts with Law 14/1924, in which Article 2 stated that citizens have the right to assembly without any permission, and its sufficient to notify the Ministry of Interior. Also Article 9 of the same law gives the right to citizens to public gathering according to the same regulations of Article 2. It was also argued that the Minister's decision is inconsistent with international human rights documents such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is ratified by Egypt and is binding as a national law to the Egyptian Government according to Article 151 of the Egyptian Constitution.
On the other side, the Government's lawyer denied the existence of the Minister's official decision and stated that it was just "instructions" preventing citizens from demonstrating or gathering in front of the Supreme Judicial House.
Finally, the Court decided to postpone reviewing the case till next session to take place on 13/6/2006 and required both parties to present their final notes and documents.
|
|
