Independent Ombudsman reveals facts regarding allegations in Amnesty International's report

Manama, Mar.15 (BNA): The Independent Ombudsman's Office (Office) has refuted allegations made in an Amnesty International’s stressed and stressed that the treatment of children was consistent with their interests as children, that their detention was only a last resort and for the shortest possible time, and that alternatives to custody was prioritized throughout the procedures. The Office also said in a statement that Bahrain's advanced methodology highlights the importance of respecting human rights before achieving other security considerations. The Office reiterated its readiness to cooperate with Amnesty International and other human rights organizations in pursuit of remedies and justice. "Following the Independent Ombudsman’s Office statement issued on March 11, 2021, regarding the announcement of an investigation carried out into the allegations raised in Amnesty International’s statement published on 3 March 3, 2021, and based on the independent Ombudsman Office’s statement that it is investigating these allegations according to its professional mechanism and the independent procedures, such as gathering information and interviewing the complainants or their representatives; in addition to recording the statements of officials in the relevant authorities and witnesses, in addition to examining any other trustworthy evidences such as CCTV recordings to reach results that reflect the methodology followed by the independent Ombudsman Office, which is a legal methodology based on facts "The Independent Ombudsman Office would like to clarify the following to the public and the individuals mentioned in Amnesty International’s statement, the organization itself, as well as the relevant stakeholders: "First, the Office has repeatedly since its establishment in 2013 and until now, affirmed its sincere desire to communicate constructively with human rights organizations, especially observations regarding allegations of serious incidents, or allegations of human rights violation. The Office has regularly indicated that it follows a mechanism that supports human rights organizations to submit complaints on behalf of individuals who claim they have been subjected to unlawful acts. "The Office has previously contacted these organizations to provide it with the evidence they have that supports the allegations regarding the cases they pursue, as well as to identify witnesses to testify, which helps the Office’s investigators to obtain evidence related to complaints and allegations during their investigation. "Second, the Office did not receive any complaint from the individuals mentioned in the Amnesty International’s statement or from their families or even from the organization itself, until the organization published its statement on March 3, 2021. "The aforementioned statement contained allegations that date back to February 2020, more than a year ago, in spite of the fact that the Office is affording many ways for the public to submit their complaints, even during these exceptional circumstances that the world has lived through most of the past year until now due to the pandemic. The Office wished those individuals to submit their complaints to it and enable it to authenticate their claims early and take the appropriate actions. "Third, the organization mentioned, in its reports, that one of the accused H.A. was interrogated twice at Criminal Investigation Department: the first was in February 2020 and alleged that he was slapped then, and the second was in November 2020. "The Office investigated these allegations in accordance with its normal practice in this context. The Office tried to examine the CCTV recordings to investigate the alleged incident of February 2020; however, these recordings were no longer available due to the passage of the auto-save of the CCTV recording, as the storage period is four months, which complies with international standards followed by police agencies and institutions worldwide. "This indicates the reluctance or indifference of the individual concerned and his family to submit any complaint to the Office during that time and this led to the loss of important evidence that could have determined the validity of the allegations. "Nevertheless, the Office has tried to contact the abovementioned accused and contacted his family more than once to give him the opportunity and hear his complaint and statement regarding the allegations and to provide him with fairness and justice. The Independent Ombudsman Office was very flexible in responding to the timings suggested by the accused’s family to attend and respected his wish to have a lawyer accompanying him. However, he did not attend nor did he provide any excuse until the date of this statement. "The Office also obtained and examined the CCTV recordings on November 30, 2020, the second time the accused was at the police department. The recordings did not demonstrate any assault on the accused during his stay at the place until his departure. "Furthermore, he was not subjected to detention since the date of committing the crime for which he was convicted (February 14, 2020) until the Public Prosecution's decision was issued on December 2, 2020 to detain him temporarily. "Fourth, the two accused F.H. and M.J. were interviewed at the Independent Ombudsman Office after the judgement was issued on March 11, 2021. "In the interview with the Independent Ombudsman investigator, they stated that they were summoned on February 10, 2021 before the Criminal Investigation Department to notify them of the trial date and to sign an attendance form. "On that date, the two accused did not undergo any investigation and left the same day with their family. The next day, they both were in the Criminal Investigation Department to have their fingerprints taken after the Court's decision to detain them temporarily. They were then transferred on the same day to the detention center. "Fifth, the Office has verified the availability of health care for the accused S.H. referred to in the Amnesty International statement during his pretrial detention, which was for one month. "The Office also examined the medical reports during his detention and the medicine prescribed and given to him. In addition, it verified that the conditions in pretrial detention did not negatively affect his health condition or the nature and level of diseases he was suffering from before entering the place. The Independent Ombudsman Office tried more than once to communicate by phone with the aforementioned person or any of his family members, but it did not receive any responses. "In conclusion: "The defendants whom Amnesty International spoke about - with the exception of one defendant whose imprisonment decision was issued by the Public Prosecution Service in November 2020 - were in their homes and among their relatives and families since the time of the committing of the crime in February 2020 until the Court's decision to arrest them was issued on February 11, 2021. That is about one full year. "The defendants came from their homes accompanied by their relatives and their lawyers to the session, except for one defendant who did not have a lawyer with him, prompting the Court, through the Ministry of Justice, to appoint a lawyer for him. "Amnesty's statement that 'the treatment of all four children should be done in a manner consistent with their interests as children and ensuring that detention is used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time, and that alternatives to custody are prioritized throughout the procedures,' matches fully the steps taken by the relevant authorities in the security administration, the public prosecution and the criminal court. "All these procedures were taken before the release of Amnesty International’s statement and afterwards. These procedures were taken based on the advanced methodology followed in Bahrain that highlights the importance of respecting human rights before achieving other security considerations. "Furthermore, the Fourth High Criminal Court has clearly demonstrated such methodology in its judgement on March 11, 2021, against those defendants who aged 16 and 17 at the time of committing the crime of burning tires and illegal assembly, sentencing them to only six months. "The Court replaced the imprisonment sentence with alternative sentencing and integrating the defendants into the rehabilitation programs. The Court also confirmed that the verdict is in line with the objective of the new Corrective Justice Law regarding this age group. "The Office affirms that its methodology is based on precise and specific standards that are not limited to what is raised in the media or from a human rights perspective. It always seeks to conduct professional investigations, and it continues to consider the statements submitted to it to verify the validity of any other allegations that were not previously mentioned in order to take action. "The Office still welcomes cooperation with Amnesty International and any other organization in its fields of work in pursuit of remedies and justice. It urges this organization, the persons mentioned in its mission, and all the public to benefit from the services it provides through the many means and methods dedicated to receive complaints and requests for assistance because this is at the core of the Office's duty and mission, its professional work and its role in promoting respect for human rights."