User:Mohamed CJ/Human rights violations in the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising

Torture


Torture during the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising was described by many human rights reports as widespread and systematic. Up to 1866 who make up 64% of detainees reported cases of torture. Three government agencies, namely the Ministry of Interior, the National Security Agency and the Bahrain Defence Force, were involved in interrogating detainees in relation to the events of the uprising. The NSA and MoI followed a systematic practice of physical and psychological mistreatment, which in many cases amounted to torture. Only four of the individuals who alleged torture were arrested by the BDF. The Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry have attributed the deaths of five individuals to torture.

Many of the forms and techniques of abuse described in this article were also reported to have been employed in Bahrain during the 1990s uprising. This indicate that prison officials are being guided by a similar set of practices, or even policies, as existed in the past. This indicates a systemic problem, which can only be addressed on a systemic level.

The most common techniques used on detainees included the following: blindfolding; handcuffing; enforced standing for prolonged periods; beating; punching; hitting the detainee with rubber hoses (including on the soles of the detainee’s feet), cables, whips, metal, wooden planks or other objects; electrocution; sleep-deprivation; exposure to extreme temperatures; verbal abuse; threats of rape to the detainee or family members; and insulting the detainee’s religious sect (Shia).

Most detainees were arrested by security forces without presentation of an arrest warrant and without being promptly informed of the reasons for their arrest. Many detainees were then held for weeks or even months with limited, if any, access to the outside world. In particular, there was no access to the courts to challenge the lawfulness of detention. Detainees were denied access to lawyers, sometimes for long periods and sometimes even until the day of the trial. In addition, the Government of Bahrain withheld from detainees and/or their families information about the detainee‘s whereabouts for periods ranging from days to weeks. In addition, prolonged incommunicado detention may itself violate the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Where the family of a detainee is denied information as to the fact of detention or the whereabouts of the detainee, the anguish that family members suffer may render them, too, victims of violations of the same prohibition. Torture also happened outside the prison, at checkpoints, as 166 cases of exposure to torture at checkpoints out of a sample of 237 cases of people stopped at checkpoints.

Excessive use of force against protesters
Security forces involved in the events violated the principles of necessity and proportionality. This is evident in both the choice of weapons that were used by these forces during confrontations with civilians and the manner in which these weapons were used. Four Bahraini government agencies undertook security operations during the uprising. These were the MoI, the BDF, the National Guard and the NSA. Within the MoI, the Public Security Forces (PSF) is the main armed force that is assigned the primary responsibility of maintaining security in Bahrain. These forces operate under the direction of the Commander of the Public Security Forces, who reports directly to the Minister of Interior. The PSF was the government agency that was the most involved in confrontations with demonstrators.

In situations where PSF units were attacked by civilians, the nature and intensity of these attacks in most cases did not warrant the use of shotguns against civilians. PSF personnel should have resorted to less lethal means of confronting civilians, in accordance with their obligation to minimise injury to civilians and to respect and preserve human life. Security forces did not apply safety measures when using their weapons on demonstrators, causing unnecessary injuries and in some cases injuring people not participating demonstrations.

No evidence was found to establish a purposeful practice of the use of lethal force by PSF units during the performance of their duties, the PSF have, on many occasions, used force and firearms in situations where this was unnecessary and in a manner that was disproportionate. No evidence was found to establish a purposeful practice of excessive use of force by BDF units that undertook field operations or that manned checkpoints in parts of Manama and other towns. However, the Bahraini government has not taken any action against those who used excessive force against the protesters.

Attack strategy
Once protests were reported to be taking place at a certain town or village, the PSF would deploy riot control units, which usually arrived in SUVs or buses. These units were usually armed with batons, shields, tear gas, sound bombs, rubber bullets and shotguns. The PSF personnel would first block the main entryways into the villages or neighbourhoods in which a protest were taking place. This was to prevent protesters from leaving these neighbourhoods and joining other demonstrations that might be occurring elsewhere. Police personnel would then begin engaging protesters using tear gas and sound bombs. The usual practice of PSF units was to use excessive amounts of tear gas to disperse protesters. On a number of occasions, PSF units fired tear gas canisters at and into residences. If protesters did not disperse, police personnel would usually begin approaching the protesters and firing rubber bullets and, in some cases, shotgun rounds.

Level of force
The level of force used against civilians by the Government of Bahrain during the uprising fluctuated. In the period between 14 and 19 February 2011, and after 15 March the security services, particularly the PSF, were deployed in large numbers, and used, on many occasions, unnecessary and disproportionate force to confront and disperse demonstrations.

From 14 to 19 February 2011, the MoI deployed large numbers of troops to confront and disperse the demonstrations that took place in various areas of Bahrain. However, after the reopening of the Pearl Roundabout to demonstrators on 19 February 2011, PSF units exercised considerable self-restraint and the confrontations with protesters were limited. This is evidenced by the fact that no fatalities were recorded until a State of National Safety was declared in Bahrain on 15 March 2011. After that date, PSF units were again deployed in large numbers and were ordered to forcefully disperse protesters in the various towns and villages of Bahrain.

Use of shotguns
In the use of shotguns, PSF units did not, at all times, strictly comply with their legal obligation to target the individuals in a manner that would disable or incapacitate the individual. The available evidence, including forensic and ordnance reports, indicates that on a number of occasions PSF personnel fired their weapons without taking due care to ensure that individuals were not fatally injured. In many situations, PSF units that used shotguns during the execution of their duties did not respect the obligation enshrined in Bahraini and international law to use firearms in a manner that was proportionate to the seriousness of the danger presented. On a number of occasions, civilians participating in demonstrations that were confronted by PSF units sustained various types of injuries. The most serious of these injuries, which in some cases led to the death of the victim, were caused by the use of shotguns. In many cases, victims sustained shotgun wounds to the back, eyes, face, limbs and chest. The distance from which these shotgun rounds were fired ranged from less than one metre to over 10 metres. Statements indicate that shotgun rounds were, in some cases, used as a weapon of first resort against protesters as they escaped from PSF units. This means that some of the individuals who sustained shotgun wounds did not pose a threat to the PSF personnel. Victims have also stated that PSF personnel did not fire warning shots and that, on some occasions, they did not fire their shotguns with a view to disabling individuals but rather to fatally injure. A "huge" number of shotgun injuries were in the back, i.e. they were preparing to escape and not in a situation of facing the security forces. A report by BCHR has documented many cases of protesters being blinded by bird shotgun aimed at their faces. Overall, PSF units fired shotguns on civilians in situations where police personnel were not subjected to an “imminent threat of death or serious injury”.

Use of teargas
PSF units resorted to the disproportionate use of tear gas for the dispersion of protesters. On many occasions, the number of tear gas canisters fired at protesters was disproportionate to the size of the demonstration and the number of participants. In a number of situations, tear gas canisters were fired at private homes, in a manner that was unnecessary and indiscriminate.

PSF units used amounts of tear gas that were disproportionate to the objective of dispersing protesters. In some incidents, tear gas was fired directly at or into houses, in circumstances where there was no threat to PSF personnel. In one instance 16 tear gas canisters were fired during a period of less than four minutes in a highly populated area. In another incident in Janusan, at least four tear gas canisters (each containing six projectiles) were fired from a short range into the kitchen and living room of a home. Such use of tear gas rendered these homes uninhabitable.

Security forces have used various types of riot control agents to quell recent protests including unidentified chemical agents. Though international law prohibits use of riot control agents in closed areas. Bahraini forces have released tear gas and other control agents in enclosed spaces, including homes.

Use of rubber bullets
PSF units fired rubber bullets in a manner that did not aim to cause minimal injuries to civilians. Rubber bullets were used frequently by PSF units. On some occasions police personnel fired rubber bullets at close range, which caused serious injuries to a number of victims, including to their eyes, and in some cases resulted in partial or total loss of sight.

Checkpoints
PSF personnel used excessive force when searching vehicles and individuals at these checkpoints. Police personnel routinely physically assaulted individuals stopped at these checkpoints if there was any evidence that they had participated in or supported the protests that had been ongoing in Bahrain. The forms of physical abuse include beating, kicking (including when the person was already lying on the ground) and pushing individuals against cars. In most cases, this physical abuse occurred despite the fact that victims did not resist arrest and did not pose any threat to PSF units.

Arbitrary detentions, arrests and enforced disappearances
The agencies involved in these arrests are the NSA and the MoI, in particular the CID and PSF, which include riot police. One hundred individuals were arrested by the BDF. The BDF also arrested two medical personnel at SMC and two former members of the Chamber of Deputies, one of whom was arrested in the street. NSA records indicate that it conducted 179 domiciliary arrests, With respect to the 179 domiciliary arrests, NSA records indicate that the agency conducted the arrests by itself and that it took the individuals into custody in the NSA basement detention facility. These persons remained in detention for various periods of time ranging from two days to three weeks.

MoI records indicate that it conducted 1,950 arrests. In effecting these arrests, the MoI acted either without the involvement of the NSA or, in some cases, with NSA involvement but under the lead of the MoI. The persons arrested were then transferred to one of three facilities and were detained for periods ranging from days to months. In all reported cases, the individuals performing the arrest wore black hoods covering their heads. The behaviour of the hooded security forces indicates a common practice, which suggests that they received the same type of training. Many of these arrests were reported to have occurred between 01:00 and 03:00. The hooded security forces were armed and the display of their weapons added to the terrorising effect on the inhabitants of the household. The women in the household were asked to stand in their sleeping garments and were not permitted to cover their bodies. These women were embarrassed and degraded, particularly in light of their religious beliefs. Children were forced out of their beds screaming and crying and were frequently forced apart from their mothers, which further caused psychological trauma to both the children and their mothers.

Security forces conducted searches by breaking into closets and drawers and then seizing personal property, including electronic equipment such as computers, mobile phones and other objects. Many instances were reported of security forces seizing personal property such as money, jewellery and perfume. The arrested persons were blindfolded and handcuffed behind their backs before being removed. Many of the security forces directed verbal abuse and insults at both the arrested individuals and members of their family. With few exceptions, all of the arrested individuals were Shia. The verbal abuse generally involved insulting religious and sectarian beliefs and symbols. This included the seizure of cars and, in some cases, wilful damage done to cars that were not seized. property seized at the scene of arrests, including cars, had not been returned to them.

Government deny any seizure of other personal property such as money, jewellery or perfume, which would otherwise constitute theft. They also deny any wilful destruction of property inside the houses or damage to cars outside the houses, other than that caused by the use of force necessary to execute searches and arrests. These agencies also stated that the security forces were hooded in order to protect them from being identified for fear of retaliation against them and their families.

pattern of domiciliary arrests

 * 1) houses were surrounded by security forces: the MoI, NSA, or at times a combination of both.

Treatment of Women and Children Present During Arrests
Security forces broke down the door and conducted a violent search for the suspect until he was apprehended, generally in the presence of women and children. Once the suspect was identified, security forces immediately restrained his movement by throwing him on the floor face-down and tying his hands extremely tightly behind his back using plastic handcuffs, which caused a loss of sensation in many cases (four victims suffered nerve injuries from handcuffs). The security forces then typically beat the suspect (usually using kicks and punches, and on some occasions striking the suspect with their firearms) in front of his family.

A number of women who provided statements to the Commission said that at the time of the arrest, they were in bed wearing a nightgown and were not allowed to cover themselves when security forces raided the house and searched the rooms. Two women stated that they were instructed to keep their hands down when they attempted to cover their chest. security forces interrogated family members with regard to the whereabouts of suspects who were not present in the house, sometimes threatening to take their sons, daughters, brothers or others present in the house in order to lead them to the suspect’s location. In a few cases, male witnesses stated that security forces threatened to sexually abuse the women until the men provided information on the whereabouts of the suspect. In most instances, it was alleged that security forces deliberately terrorised all family members, including women and children, and told them to stay away from the suspect. Security forces sometimes instructed children to go inside bedrooms while threatening to kill other members of the household.

Destruction of Property
Most witnesses stated that security forces broke down the front door and, in some cases, the back door of the house in the course of the arrest. While this was frequently the home of the individual being arrested, there were also instances in which the individual being arrested was in the home of a relative or a friend. A small number of witnesses recalled that the security forces also rang the doorbell. In a small minority of cases, witnesses reported that security forces entered through windows. The destruction documented in these photographs was not limited to a single room and included living rooms, kitchens, bedrooms and hallways. Personal items included those of both financial and sentimental value. Many witnesses stated that security forces deliberately broke the turba (stone used for prayer amongst Shia) as well as pictures of religious and political leaders. Commission investigators received photographs of some of these destroyed items. Additionally, investigators interviewed 264 detainees at detention centres and prisons. Most of those detainees alleged that during the arrest security forces intentionally destroyed doors, furniture and other household items. In some instances, these allegations were corroborated by relatives who also provided statements to the Commission.

Theft of Property
The Commission received 16 complaints that members of the security forces stole property from inside the house in the course of the arrest. The stolen property included electronic equipment such as mobile phones, computers and laptops, as well as personal items such as jewellery, perfume and money. The MoI told Commission investigators that the electronic equipment was seized as evidence against the arrested persons. Some of the stolen items were subsequently returned to the owners. However, a large majority of those who attempted to retrieve their property were told that security forces had no records of the property having been taken. In other cases, detainees stated that they had seen their property in court being used as evidence against them. Some of the witnesses alleged that when they asked about their items, they were told that they were “spoils of war”. The Minister of Interior assured the Commissioners that security forces always respected the laws of Bahrain. However, he admitted that they had investigated three cases of police misconduct and that the offenders had received harsh penalties. The NSA denied that any of their personnel had ever stolen anything. However, they indicated that they had heard of some cases of police misconduct, but they had no details to share with the Commission.

Findings
Between 21 March and 15 April 2011, Bahrain security forces systematically raided houses in order to arrest individuals, and in so doing terrified the occupants. The security forces intentionally broke down doors, forcibly entered and sometimes ransacked the houses. This practice was often accompanied by sectarian insults and verbal abuse. Women and children and other family members frequently witnessed these events. In many of the reported cases, the women were asked to stand in their sleeping clothes, which did not adequately cover their bodies, thus humiliating the women, the children and their arrested spouses or relatives. This practice also constitutes a violation of Muslim and in particular Shia religious practices. In all of the cases in which arrests and incidental searches of residential premises and seizures of property were made, no arrest or search warrant was shown to the person arrested or the person whose premises were searched. On its face, this type of arrest constitutes arbitrary arrest under article 9 of the ICCPR. substantial number of the arrests made pursuant to the pattern described above violated international human rights law and Bahrain law. In particular, security forces carried out the arrests without presenting an arrest or search warrant. The Commission finds that in many cases, the manner in which the arrest was performed involved unnecessary excessive force, accompanied by terror-inspiring behaviour on the part of the security forces in addition to unnecessary damage to property. All of these factors reveal a failure to follow the appropriate procedures identified by the MoI and NSA. In regard to the seizure of items in connection to arrest, the agencies involved did not provide any records of the seized items. The Commission investigators were also not informed of any investigation commenced by the respective agencies on the basis of complaints by the persons arrested or members of their families. This evidences a pattern of disregard for violations of any procedures that may have existed as well as disregard for Bahrain law and international human rights law pertaining to fairness and due process in connection with arrests. Furthermore, the very fact that a systematic pattern of behaviour existed indicates that this is how these security forces were trained and how they were expected to act. This could not have happened without the knowledge of higher echelons of the command structure of the MoI and NSA. The failure to investigate these practices effectively, and the failure to take adequate measures to prevent violations by security forces, could constitute the basis for superior responsibility.

So far, about 1500 cases of arrest linked to the protests have been recorded, and 924 cases have been reported to the BICI commission which qualify as arbitrary detention under international human rights instruments like the ICCPR. The tactics of the Bahraini authorities have disproportionately targeted Shia Bahrainis through checkpoints stationed around Shia villages and the use of social media to identify protesters who had participated in demonstrations. Other groups targeted include doctors who treated injured civilians at the Salmaniya medical complex, students, journalists and bloggers and human rights and political activists, both Shia and Sunnis.

One of the clearest cases of arbitrary arrest was of Ayat al-Gormezi, who was imprisoned for reading a poem critical of the King at Pearl Roundabout. She went into hiding because she was afraid of arrest, but was forced to hand herself in after police threatened to kill her brothers. This case in particular was shocking to those in other countries, because her imprisonment and sentence of one year in jail was so disproportionate. Mohammed al-Tajer, a well known defense lawyer, was arrested during a night raid on April 15th. “Human Rights Watch believes that al-Tajer is the first defense lawyer detained in more than a decade. He is well known for defending opposition figures and rights activists arrested in security sweeps”, noted a Reliefweb report.

Similar to the case of torture, arbitrary arrest and detention is used as a tool of intimidation and punishment for dissidents in Bahrain. Although Bahrain derogated from its obligations to the right to liberty and security of the person from 15 March to 1 June, many violations of these rights were committed outside of this period. The prevalence of arbitrary arrest shows the lack of legal controls which the security forces are bound by, and these actions form part of a general pattern of unfair trials, as prisoners are usually never shown a warrant for their arrest. The concern about the prevalence of arbitrary arrest and enforced disappearance is that they are violations which often attend other serious breaches of human rights law, such as torture and extrajudicial execution. In total, they point to the serious extent of the political repression currently taking place in Bahrain.

Physicians for Human Rights investigated how the Government of Bahrain has systematically targeted physicians and other medical personnel since its crackdown against pro-democracy demonstrators began in February 2011. PHR investigators received corroborated testimonies of armed security forces abducting physicians from their homes in the middle of the night and detaining them incommunicado at unknown interrogation centers. In addition to investigating widespread abductions, PHR gathered evidence concerning a recent incident that involved the beating, abuse, and threatening of six Shi’a physicians while on-call at Salmaniya Hospital. These incidents are not isolated, but rather represent a systematic and coordinated attack against medical personnel, apparently because these health professionals treated hundreds of injured protesters who had participated in anti-government demonstrations.