Press release on the mission of the observation commission of Mr. Naama Asfari’s trial Date: 03-06-2008
Author: OMDH
Press release on the mission of the observation commission of Mr. Naama Asfari’s trial
 
 
The Moroccan Human Rights Organisation (OMDH) on April 19, 2008, issued a press release wherein it announced the creation of an Observation Commission of the Trial of Naama Asfari, deputy president of the France-based Organisation of Liberties and human rights in the Sahara with the aim to monitor the conditions and the guarantees for a fair trial.
 
The Observation Commission of Naama Asfari’s Trial includes:
 
-   Mr. Hamoumi Jilali, former President of the Marrakech bar association and former member of the national council of the organization.
-   Mr. Ahmed Chaouki Benyoub, Lawyer in Rabat bar and former deputy President of the organisation.
-   Dr. Youssef El Bouhairi, Professor of International Law at the Marrakech faculty of Law and member of the national bureau of the organization.
 
The observation commission:
-   Took cognisance of all the case file documents.
-   Followed all hearings.
-   Held a special meeting with the victim and the witnesses.
 
After the observation commission fulfilled its mission and submitted its report, the following conclusions can be drawn:
 
1. Facts regarding the case and its process:
 
-         The judiciary police at the first district of Marrakech police department on April 14, 2008 did the minutes N° 853 and transferred Mr. Naama Asfari, in a state of detention, upon the instructions of the general Prosecutor of the Marrakech first instance court, who sued Mr. Asfari on April 15, 2004 on charges of public drunkenness, reckless driving, violence, damaging a public utility and unjustified possession of a weapon as stipulated in the related penal dispositions.
 
-   For trial reasons, the file N° 2261/13/2008 was opened before the competent penal court chaired by one judge. Following three hearings, on 17/04/2008, 21/04/2008 and 28/04/2008, the court sentenced Mr. Asfari to two months in jail and compensation for the victim MAD 2000.
 
-   Besides the Organisation delegation, the trial was followed by Mrs. lawyers France Weyl and Aline Chanu from the Paris bar association, who were hired by the Droit Solidarité and the Association Internationale des Juristes Démocrates (AIJD) and Mrs. Alfiledo and Anoris from the Madrid Observatory of Human rights.
 
-   The judicial police said, in the minutes taken on April 14, 2008, at 3 a.m. that while on the scene in the Mohammed V street in Marrakech, it found Mr. Naama Asfari drunk and unable to stand up, carrying a folding weapon with a blade, as well as the victim K.M., accompanied by her friend S.I., who said she was subject to insults, blows and injuries by him, and that the dispute was due to passage priority;
 
-   Mr. Naama said, in the minutes taken by the judicial police, that he was drunk, and that a quarrel occurred between him and the car driver –i.e. the victim-, that the quarrel was due to self-defence, and that he did not intend to cause physical damages as he was very angry because some inquisitive people exacerbated the situation. He denied possessing a knife at the time of the quarrel;
 
-   The victim K.M. said that she was driving her car, accompanied by her friend S.I., and that nearby the Abdelmoumen crossroads in the Mohammed V street, a person aboard his car stopped in the middle of the street to prevent her from passing. After blowing his horn, he got out and headed towards her to assault her physically. Being pregnant, she fell down unconscious;
 
-   The police heard the witnesses R.M. and S.I. who confirmed the attack. They also heard a security agent who was on the scene, confirming the occurrence of the quarrel and the fact that Mr. Asfari was drunk, with his upper part of his body naked, in a state of hysteria, and carrying a knife;
 
-   Heard on April 15, 2008 by the Public Prosecutor, M. Asfari admitted he was drunk when driving, while he denied the other details related to the quarrel;
 
2. Notes on the development of the trial:
 
* Mr. Naama went on hurling, while entering the court and during all the hearings, slogans linked to his defence of the Sahrawi people and its right to existence and independence. He added that this issue is nothing but a pretext to trap him, considering his activities as a human-rights activist, and that he was heading for Marrakech for personal organizational missions;
* Mr. Naama Asfari refused to provide the court with any details regarding the circumstances of and the reasons for the physical attack on the victim, without, however, denying the occurrence of a quarrel between him and the victim due to a traffic accident. He tried, throughout the trial, to divert the discussion on the charge.
* The defence of Mr. Naama Asfari presented pleas on the absence of his defence at the time of his presentation, noting that his family was not informed of his arrest. He pointed out, during his plea on the content, that he cast doubts on the facts blamed on him, that he was known for his human-rights activities and that he was involved in this issue for political considerations;
 
3. Conclusions on the conditions of a fair trail:
 
The trial took place in conformity with the public nature, as it was followed by some international human-rights organizations and a large audience.
 
· The duration of Mr. Naama Asfari’s arrest and his remanding in custody were respected;
 
· The witnesses were heard and the defendant and his defence were able to submit their pleas during all the trail stages.
 
· The debate and the confrontation between the defendant, the victim and the witnesses were carried out.
 
During the last hearing, Mr. Naama Asfari vaguely answered to the questions on not informing the public prosecutor and the court on the torture that he pretends had been endured.
 
· Mr. Naama Asfari vaguely answered to the questions on not informing the public prosecutor and the court on the torture that he pretends had been endured till the last hearing, i.e. 15 days after the altercation.
 
· Neither influence nor orientation of the witnesses was noticed when the observation commission heard them, as the spontaneity of their testimonies was confirmed.
 
General conclusion
 
· The facts, as recorded in the case file and submitted to the court, fall within the common law offence. The examination of the case and the observation of the trial’s hearings show that there is no link between the case file falling within the common law and the allegations of Mr. Naama Asfari.
Back to News List