"The first week of this case showed once again that the charges against Dr. Ibrahim and his co-defendants are without foundation," said Neil Hicks, the director of Human Rights First's Human Rights Defenders Project, who was one of two Human Rights First observers at the opening of the trial. "The arbitrary manner in which Dr. Ibrahim and others working at organizations with which he is associated have been singled out for prosecution demonstrates the ease with which the government can manipulate the legal and judicial system for its own ends."

Dr. Ibrahim, 63, has long been an outspoken independent commentator and strong advocate for minority rights and increased democratic participation by all Egyptian citizens. He and 27 co-defendants were convicted on May 21, 2001, on charges of receiving foreign funds without government permission, deliberately disseminating false information abroad harmful to Egypt's interests, and defrauding the European Union.

Several of the defendants received prison sentences, the most lengthy of which was the seven year sentence imposed on Dr. Ibrahim. In February 2002, however, the Court of Cassation overturned the conviction and ordered the release of those imprisoned, pending a re-trial by another State Security Court.

The re-trial commenced on April 27 before a new panel of three judges. In the first week of proceedings, three prosecution witnesses were heard and examined by counsel for the defense. In addition, the defense challenged the constitutionality of the Military Decree of 1992, under which the charge of receiving foreign funds without government authorization has been brought.

As the second week of the re-trial approaches, Human Rights First calls once again for all charges against Saad Eddin Ibrahim and his co-defendants to be dismissed. The charge of defrauding the European Union is unfounded and has been directly refuted by the EU itself, in an affidavit submitted to the Court. "Many Egyptian organizations seek and receive funding from foreign donors, and the prosecution of Dr. Ibrahim and his colleagues represents the arbitrary application of a Military decree with dubious constitutionality," said Hicks.

The charge of defaming the Egyptian State is also a totally unacceptable restriction on freedom of expression. It is the essence of democracy that persons be able to express their views freely, particularly views related to the governance of the State. The statements made by Dr. Ibrahim which appear to form the basis of this charge were legitimate forms of speech and do not differ significantly from numerous other statements and views expressed by a range of individuals within and outside Egypt.

"This trial has had a chilling impact on other Egyptian human rights organizations and activists, who work in constant fear of prosecution for their legitimate activities," added Hicks. "For example, the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, Egypt's oldest human rights monitoring group, has faced severe disruption since the arrest of Dr. Ibrahim in June 2000. Even today it is operating at a much reduced capacity, in large part because of uncertainty about its legal status, and concern that its leaders may face imprisonment for their work."

Should the charges against Dr. Ibrahim and his colleagues not be dropped, Human Rights First trusts that the judges of the State Security Court will rule in favor of the defense and acquit all of the defendants. It is crucial that the Court demonstrate its independence and impartiality, and that it repairs the tarnished image of the Egyptian judicial system that this prosecution has engendered.

"The Court must not allow the government to use a veneer of law to persecute those who criticize its policies and actions," said Hicks. "Activists such as Dr. Ibrahim must be able to rely upon the courts and the rule of law in their fight to promote and protect human rights for all Egyptians."