Appendix I: Responses and Statements from Moroccan Authorities

Case of Seddik Kebbouri and Others

Statement from Morocco’s Interministerial Delegation for Human RightsReceived August 16, 2012

Following the riots in Bouarfa on May 18, 2011, the judicial police conducted an investigation that revealed that some 16 persons belonging to the unrecognized Association of the Independent Unemployed had organized a protest in front of Prefecture of Figuig province in Bouarfa demanding jobs. They attempted to storm the labor office and during attempts to deter them, they occupied a major thoroughfare, paralyzing traffic in the city. An additional 25 individuals from the Union of the Promotion Nationale[137] joined them, along with 12 former military personnel. When police asked them not to occupy the main street and respect the law, a protestor, one Rachid Ziani, who is the treasurer of the aforementioned association, poured gasoline on his clothes and those of his companions, after which Mohamed Maktouf, an advisor at the local office of the association, lit a lighter in the midst of his comrades, injuring Rachid Ziani. Ziani was taken to al-Farabi Hospital in Oujda for burn treatment. When the protest ended, members of the association, with encouragement from Seddik Kebbouri, the local officer of the Democratic Confederation of Labor (CDT), and Mahjoub Chennou, an officer with the Union of the Promotion Nationale, along with other persons, mobilized local residents. When the crowd reached approximately 600 persons, most of them minors, they headed to the prefecture in an attempt to storm it. Prevented by the security forces from doing so, they pelted security personnel and auxiliary forces with rocks and empty bottles, inflicting various degrees of injuries. They also threw stones at the Directorate for the Surveillance of National Territory [police headquarters] and attempted to storm it, causing material damage. They targeted the vehicles of security personnel and the Royal Gendarmerie, and uprooted traffic signs and burned tires. As a result of the attacks, 18 civil servants with the General Directorate of National Security, 14 members of the auxiliary forces, and six members of the Royal Gendarmerie were injured.

In light of these events, ten persons were detained, among them Seddik Kebbouri and Mahjoub Chennou. When they were questioned, they confirmed the acts attributed to them. They were brought before the crown prosecutor, who charged them with insulting public servants in the course of duty, using violence against them, disobedience, vandalism, willful destruction of property of public interest, the possession of weapons in circumstances likely to threaten public security or the safety of persons or property, participating in an unauthorized demonstration on a public street and assembling on it, and intentionally causing material damage to private moveable property.

On June 17, 2011, the [Figuig] First Instance Court in Bouarfa found all of the defendants guilty. It convicted Mohamed Negbaoui, Jamal Ati, Abdessamad Karboub, Abdelkader Qaza, Yassine Balit, Abdelaziz Boudabia, and Abdelali Kdida on the charge of willfully damaging private property, and fined them 200 dirhams [US$24]; on the remaining charges, they were sentenced to three years in prison and fined 1,000 dirhams [US$120]. The court acquitted Brahim Mqadmi on the charge of organizing a demonstration on a public road without an authorization and convicted him on the remaining charges. On the crime of the willful causation of material damage to private property, he was fined 200 dirhams; on the remaining charges, he was sentenced to two years and ten months in prison and fined 1,000 dirhams. The court convicted defendants Seddik Kebbouri and Mahjoub Chennou on the charges of assembly and demonstration without a license on a public street, taking part in disobedience, and taking part in insulting public servants in the course of duty. They were each given two and a half years in prison and fined 1,000 dirhams [US$120]. They were acquitted of the remaining charges.

The verdict was appealed, no 1134/11, appellate flagrante delicto misdemeanor. The court ruled on July 26, 2011 to overturn the conviction of Seddik Kebbouri and Mahjoub Chennou on charges of participating in insulting public servants in the course of duty. The court also overturned the conviction of the remaining defendants on the charge of insulting public servants in the course of duty. The court again acquitted all defendants of the charges of which they were originally acquitted. The court upheld the rest of the verdict, while reducing the prison sentence against Brahim Mqadmi to 16 months, the sentence of Seddik Kebbouri and Mahjoub Chennou to two years, and the sentence of the remaining defendants to 18 months. Defendants Seddik Kebbouri, Mahjoub Chennou, and Abdessamad Karboub appealed the ruling to the Court of Cassation; which rejected the appeal on February 29, 2012.

Given the facts above, it is clear that the court, in delivering its verdict, was convinced of the flagrante delicto nature of the case and the seriousness of the acts, seen in the rioting and in the defendants’ pelting of security forces with stones and glass bottles at the urging of Seddik Kebbouri and Mahjoub Chennou. The former used a megaphone to assemble more than 600 persons, most of them minors, who headed toward the prefecture office where the security forces confronted them, leading to material damage to vehicles, the destruction of state property, and the injury of several members of the security forces with wounds of varying degrees. They confessed to these acts before the judicial police and the Royal Prosecutor, and their recantation before the court was supported by no material evidence. Moreover, the prosecution of the defendants was at all stages unexceptional, during which time they enjoyed their right to defense with formal arguments, to which the court responded. During the process, all the principles and rules for a fair trial were observed while complying with legal codes in accordance with the provisions of the law.

Finally, it must be noted that Seddik Kebbouri and Mahjoub Chennou were released on February 4, 2012 pursuant to a royal amnesty.

Case of Zakaria Moumni

Statement from Morocco’s Minister of Foreign AffairsReceived September 27, 2011 in French Translated into English by Human Rights Watch

Regarding Allegations of a Failure to Inform the Family of his Location

The law requires that the judicial police inform the family of the person held in garde à vue as soon as they decide to place that person in garde à vue. Thus, the family is notified by any means, which could be by telephone, in writing, orally, or by a representative of the public authorities (article 67 of the Code of Penal Procedure).

Moreover, as noted in the [police statement] signed by [Moumni], his family was informed of the date of his being placed in garde à vue.

It must be pointed out that an officer of the judiciary policy is required to submit daily to the crown prosecutor and the general prosecutor, a list of persons placed in garde à vue during the previous 24 hours.

The fact that a person is placed in garde à vue in no way restricts the rights he enjoys, except of course for his right to liberty and those rights that depend on it.

Regarding the Allegations that [Moumni’s] Defense Team did not Succeed in Contacting the Complainants

It must be pointed out that Mustapha Ouchkat and Idriss Saâdi filed a complaint against the suspect via their lawyer, Mr. Abdessamad Raji Senhaji.  The two complainants were heard by officers of the judicial police, who took their statements, which note their identities, addresses, and the numbers of their national identity cards.

From the preceding, it emerges that the addresses of the complainants are known and [Moumni’s] defense team can contact them and ask the court to summon them, referring to the addresses mentioned in the statements.

Statement from Morocco’s Interministerial Delegation for Human Rights Received February 28, 2012

The named individual, Zakaria Moumni, was the subject of an investigation at the national level, based on the complaints presented to the public prosecutor in Rabat by Mr. Abdessamad Raji Senhaji, a lawyer in the district of Rabat, on behalf of Mustapha Ishkat and Idriss Saâdi, alleging that the aforementioned claimed that he was able to obtain for them two employment contracts in France or in another European country in return for the sum of 24,000 dirhams [US$2,880] from each of them; and on January 23, 2010 they each gave him 14,000 dirhams [US$1,680]as a down payment, with the remaining amount to be paid on the attainment of the work contracts, and he gave them his mobile telephone number in France, which is 0033661428342.

After a period of communication through the mentioned number they found that the number no longer worked. It then became clear to them that they had been defrauded, and after questioning the accused on September 27, 2010, in Salé airport, he confirmed that he had accepted the mentioned payments. Due to his financial needs and inability to obtain employment and income, he decided to obtain income even through unlawful means by taking advantage of the aspirations of some Moroccans to emigrate abroad. And so the plaintiffs identified the aforementioned from within a group of people who were put before them, and based on this the Public Prosecutor brought him to the First Degree Court in Rabat for fraud. A verdict was reached on his case on October 4, 2010, and he was sentenced to three years imprisonment and a fine of 500 dirhams [US$60], which the plaintiff appealed. In appeal file number 3792/10/19 a ruling was reached upholding the initial conviction but reducing the prison sentence to two and a half years. The sentence was challenged by the defendant, and the Supreme Court issued a ruling of cassation referring the case back to the appeals court of Rabat. After this referral, a file was opened numbered 19/11/3610 and in the hearing of December 15, 2011, the defendant was present defending his initial position and the witnesses (plaintiffs) Mustapha Ishkat and Idriss Saâdi were also present. After taking the legal oath before the court, they verified together all their claims that are available in the case file, and on December 22, 2011, the court issued a ruling denying provisional release and upholding the initial verdict but reducing the prison sentence to twenty months. The prosecutor did not appeal this ruling.

It should be noted that the aforementioned was released after benefitting from a royal pardon issued on February 4, 2012 on the occasion of the Prophet’s birthday.

Statement on Case of Zakaria Moumni Sent by the Ministry of Foreign AffairsReceived May 26, 2011

[This statement begins with a summary of the case, which we have deleted because it is an earlier version of the statement reprinted above, received on February 28, 2012, from the Interministerial Delegation for Human Rights. It continues:]

On [Moumni’s] Detention in an Unknown Location and Not Informing His Family of It

These allegations have no basis of truth; as the case documents show, the aforementioned was placed under garde à vue in the station of the judicial police, which is under the supervision of the public prosecutor, beginning September 27, 2010, at 6 P.M. until 11 A.M. on September 30, 2010, after the period of garde à vue was extended 24 hours, with the approval of the public prosecutor, as per the legal requirements set forth in the Code of Penal procedure (article 66, first paragraph), and his family was notified about this procedure.

As the completed record demonstrates with regard to the aforementioned, the judicial police heard the plaintiffs, who were able to pick out the defendant from among a number of persons before them.

On the Allegation That His Confession Was Obtained under Coercion, and that He Was Denied His Right to a Lawyer

After hearing the aforementioned in legal proceedings by the judicial police, his remarks were read to him, and he himself signed the report without any coercion, as he affirmed in front of the crown prosecutor. With regard to the appointment of a lawyer, however, he chose to defend himself, in front of the public prosecutor and the court itself, though during the appeal phase, lawyer Abderrahim Jamaï assisted him before the court.

The court based its decision on the oral arguments and the content of the judicial police reports, which are deemed credible in cases involving less serious crimes, unless the defense proves the contrary (article 290 of the Code of Penal Procedure).

On the Allegation That the Aforementioned Case was Discussed Behind Closed Doors

The case was heard in an open and adversarial setting, where the conditions for a fair trial including the provisions of article 365 of the Code of Penal Procedure, were respected.

On the Allegation that He Was Tortured

[Moumni] did not raise being subjected to torture and ill treatment when appearing before the prosecutor, or during the trial, or even after his appeal of the first instance verdict, even though the law permits him to request a medical examination when brought before a prosecutor for the first time. It is also required of this judge to automatically investigate the matter if it is warranted, and the crown prosecutor did not note any signs of violence on the accused, and the aforementioned never requested a medical exam. The subject of his torture was not raised until after the discussion of the case by the court of appeals, and the court found nothing to prove this. Noting that the aforementioned and his defense did not present any complaints on the matter, and it remains his right to issue a complaint to the public prosecutor directed at those who allegedly tortured him.

The Case of Abdelkader Belliraj and Others

Statement from Morocco’s Interministerial Delegation for Human Rights Received February 28, 2012

The so-called Abdelkader Belliraj organization is one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations to be dismantled recently, given that its significance exceeds the local or national and extends to the international, and given its strong ties to international terrorist organizations, the development of its modes of operation, the diverse social origins of its members, its meticulous structure, and the seriousness of its planned objectives, as well as its establishment of a military wing, its success in importing weapons from abroad, and its massive financial and logistic means, which are sufficient to achieve its goals, both attracting a greater number of followers and in the effectiveness and success of its planned operations.

The Public Prosecution named 35 defendants in the case, among them six members of political parties, for crimes including the infringement of internal state security, the formation of an armed group to attack public property, the formation of a group to prepare and commit terrorist acts as part of collective enterprise aimed at a grave infringement of the public order, fundraising with the intent to use funds to commit terrorist acts, possession of weapons and explosives, document forgery, and money laundering. A first-instance ruling was issued against the defendants on July 28, 2009, convicting them and sentencing them to terms ranging from suspended sentences to life imprisonment.

All stages of the trial took place in conditions that observed all guarantees for a fair trial, particularly in terms of lawyers assisting the defendants, the public nature of the hearings, the presence of witnesses and translators, and all possibilities for introducing evidence. On appeal, the Criminal Appellate Chamber on July 15, 2010 reduced the prison sentences of Mustapha Mouâtassim, Mohamed Merouani, and Mohamed Lamine Regala from 25 years to 10 years each, and of Abadila Maelainin and Abdelhafidh Sriti from 20 years to 10 years each. The 2-year prison sentence against Hamid Najibi was upheld and the term completed before the appellate ruling was issued. The ruling was challenged before the Supreme Council.

The case was the subject of several defamatory and media campaigns, and several allegations were made, including that the case of the six aforementioned defendants was a political case given their political and partisan affiliations.

Their defense counsel and families attempted repeatedly to influence the course of justice at every stage of the trial, even threatening to boycott the trial sessions if their demands were not met. Every time the court dismissed one of their requests, they considered it proof of the lack of due process.

It was also claimed that their confessions were coerced. It should be noted in this regard that a confession alone is not considered proof, but is subject to the conviction of the judge and must be debated in court. Regarding the judicial police reports in criminal cases (as is relevant for this case), they do not constitute proof, but are considered simply statements. The court based its verdict on the evidence contained in the case file, the statements of witnesses and the defendants, the cross-interviews of the defendants (“confrontations”) conducted by the investigating judge, and the circumstances of each individual case. In addition, the use of any violence or coercion against the defendants was not proven.

It was alleged that they had been tortured. Articles 99 and 134 of the Code of Penal Procedure state that all public prosecutors and investigating judges must grant a medical exam when requested by defendants under garde à vue or their defense counsel. The public prosecutor or investigating judge must also automatically order a medical exam if they observe any marks on the defendant that warrant it. The defendants did not raise this claim before the public prosecutor or the investigating judge, and the latter observed no marks that would warrant an automatic order for a medical exam.

Gdeim Izik Case

As noted above, Moroccan authorities did not respond to Human Rights Watch letters sent on July 7 and November 27, 2012, asking specific questions about the pretrial detention of the defendants in the Gdeim Izik case. However, on March 25, 2013, following the verdict in the case, they sent us their White Paper on the Gdeim Izik Events.  The same day, we sent an e-mail on March 25, requesting clarification of one key passage in the White Paper concerning the trial. That passage reads:

The representative of the prosecution countered that this request [to investigate for torture] came too late since the accused did not say so before the prosecutor during the preliminary and detailed interrogations that they were subjected to torture and did not for that latter ask for a medical expertise, while they were assisted by their lawyers.

In fact, according to the police statements in the case file, at least 17 of the defendants had told the investigating judge at their first substantive hearing before him that they had been subject to torture; many of them said they had been forced to sign their police statement without reading it.  In our e-mail, we asked,

In this case was it not the investigating judge who conducted the investigation, and not the prosecutor? If so, the minutes show that the most of the defendants raised torture at this stage. So what did the prosecutor mean when he argued that the defendants had failed to raise torture claims before the investigating judge -- and why does the White Paper seem to embrace this claim?

In response, we received on April 1, 2013, the following statement in English, which we reprint as received:

Kingdom of Morocco

Interministerial Delegation for Human Rights

Clarifications  Concerning Gdim Izik – HRW

Regarding the confusion concerning the Prosecutor and the investigating judge with regard to the delay of the defendants’ requests, first, it should be noted that the extract in question refers to the prosecutor’s assessment voiced during the trial in February 2013, with regard to allegations of torture made by the accused at the time.     

The White Paper maintains that the Prosecutor reveals the fact that the defendants had not requested medical expertise during the investigation, even though they were assisted by lawyers. The fact that they did not request an expertise during this phase simply compels the Prosecutor to conclude that, if the defendants had actually been tortured, they, or their lawyers, would have asked for forensic examinations to ordered and performed.

Therefore, this is not about the Prosecutor has "directing" the investigation in any way whatsoever, or the allegations of torture or her expertise requests were submitted as part of the instruction. As a reminder, at the procedural level, it is the prosecutor who brings matters before the investigating judge. The order for referral, made by the judge, can be based on a request of the Prosecutor to refer the matter to the Permanent Tribunal of the Royal Armed Forces (TPFAR), which was the case here.

Moreover, the judge before whom the matter was brought did not estimate it necessary at the time to order investigations into the allegations of torture, and a fortiori, order medical examinations, which had not been requested in the first place.

During the trial in February 2013, most of the defendants have actually claimed to have been tortured, and accordingly, requested forensic examinations, as it is reported in the White Paper.

Refusal to order medical examinations by the TPFAR during the trial, in February 2013, can be explained simply by the fact that, taking into account the time that has elapsed since the start of the procedure, it is inherently difficult to investigate the allegations of torture or ill-treatment which are older than two years. The only case in which it was actually possible to conduct a forensic examination, is that in which the trace of injury was obvious at trial; however, it turned out that the injury in question had no link whatsoever with the allegations of torture made by the accused.

With regard to the Prosecutor’s statement, which maintains that the defendants have not made any allegations of torture before the investigating judge, although the minutes suggest otherwise (at least for 17 people), this assertion is mainly due to the fact that they had not formally requested a medical examination, provided that such request is intrinsically linked to any allegations of torture or ill-treatment.

In this case, if the investigating judge has not responded to the allegations made by the defendants at the time, it was because that these allegations were clearly unfounded, as he did not notice at the time any obvious sign or injury which would have indicated that they had been subjected to ill-treatment while arrested.

Finally, it should be noted that in general, the Criminal Procedure Code (article 134) provides the opportunity for the Crown General Prosecutor, the Crown Prosecutor, the investigating judge or magistrate in charge of the case, to order a medical examination automatically, when people brought before them manifest signs which suggest that they would have been tortured or subject to ill-treatment, without the need for the people and / or their lawyers to request it.

Case of Seven Sahrawis on Trial for “Harming Internal Security”

Statement from Morocco’s Interministerial Delegation for Human Rights Received August 16, 2012

As part of a visit to the Tindouf camps, Ali Salem Tamek, Yahdih Etarrouzi, Brahim Dahane, Ahmed Naciri, Saleh Lebeihi, Rachid Sghaier, and Degja Lachgar met with anti-Moroccan elements. Taking an Algerian military plane, they went to the Tindouf camp, where they attended several meetings with Algerian civilian and military officials, as well as military shows and parades organized in their honor by the mercenaries of the Polisario. They also attended press seminars at which they described Morocco as the enemy. They received material support from the Algerian authorities to incite the residents of the southern regions to disobedience and riots that infringe on the country’s higher interests. Following this, the Public Prosecution at the Casablanca Appellate Court ordered the judicial police to investigate them and refer them to justice.

To this end, the aforementioned persons were detained on October 8, 2009 at the Mohammed V Airport in Casablanca and turned over to the police for investigation. They were placed in garde à vue [pre-arraignment detention] the same day for an investigation into the actions attributed to them. They were brought before the prosecutor on October 15, 2009. After examining the prepared report, the prosecutor referred them to the military court, which referred them to questioning on charges of undermining the external and internal state security by accepting gifts from a foreign group to fund activities and propaganda likely to infringe on the unity and sovereignty of the kingdom and shake the loyalty of citizens to the Moroccan state and the institutions of the Moroccan people.

On January 28, 2010, the investigating judge ordered the provisional release of Degja Lachgar, and on May 18, 2010, defendants Yahdih Etarrouzi, Rachid Sghaier and Saleh Lebeihi were also granted provisional release.

On September 21, 2010, the investigating judge with the Permanent Tribunal of the Royal Armed Forces dropped the charge against Ali Salem Tamek, Brahim Dahane, Ahmed Naciri, Yahdih Etarrouzi, Rachid Sghaier, Saleh Lebeihi and Degja Lachgar of undermining external state security. He also ruled that the military court had no standing to hear the crime of undermining internal state security and referred the case file to the competent body.

Pursuant to this, the case was referred to the Casablanca Court of First Instance and a flagrant délict misdemeanor file was opened, no. 8241/10/10.

On April 14, 2011, the judge charged with carrying out the complementary investigation of the aforementioned file ordered the temporary release of defendants Ali Salem Tamek, Brahim Dahane and Ahmed Naciri. The complementary investigation is still ongoing.

The course that the case has taken indicates that the prosecution of the persons in question took place in accordance with the law and that they have enjoyed all due process guarantees.