Right to Refuse to Kill

Language
English

War Resisters' International's programme The Right to Refuse to Kill combines a wide range of activities to support conscientious objectors individually, as well as organised groups and movements for conscientious objection.

Our main publications are CO-Alerts (advocacy alerts sent out whenever a conscientious objector is prosecuted) and CO-Updates (a bimonthly look at developments in conscientious objection around the world).

We maintain the CO Guide - A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the International Human Rights System, which can help COs to challenge their own governments, and protect themselves from human rights abuses.

Information about how nation states treat conscientious objectors can be found in our World Survey of Conscientious Objection and recruitment.

More info on the programme is available here.

(Application no. 23459/03)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
7 July 2011
This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision.
 
In the case of Bayatyan v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:
Jean-Paul Costa, President, 
 Christos Rozakis, 
 Nicolas Bratza, 
 Peer Lorenzen, 
 Françoise Tulkens, 
 Nina Vajić, 
 Lech Garlicki, 
 Alvina Gyulumyan, 
 Dean Spielmann, 
 Renate Jaeger, 
 Sverre Erik Jebens, 
 Päivi Hirvelä, 
 Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, 
 Ledi Bianku, 
 Mihai Poalelungi, 
 Nebojša Vučinić, 

Maikel Nabil is jailed in the Magr prison, in a small cell. The cell is called a reformatory, and is know as "the trial," where he stays for days without seeing sunlight. He is also not allowed to get out of
the cell for any exercise. The guard interacts with Maikel only once in 24 hours, when he opens the cell at 12pm to hand Maikel his one daily meal. Then he locks 6 metal doors on the way out.

Maikel is then left in that cell with three extremely dangerous criminals. He has been threatened explicitly by one of his cellmates that "one of these days, I will cut your face with a razor."

Repression in (post)-revolutionary Egypt

On 7 March, a few weeks after the resignation of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, Maikel Nabil Sanad wrote this sentence in a detailed article on his blog [1]. In this article he analysed in detail the role of the Egyptian military during and after the revolution, and came to the conclusion that the people and the military never “were one hand” - as people said so often during the revolution.

On 28 March 2011 Maikel Nabil Sanad, a blogger, pacifist, and conscientious objector, was arrested by military police at his home, on charges of “insulting the military”, “spreading false information”, and “obstructing public security”. Less than two weeks later – on 10 April 2011 – he was convicted by a military court and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

The trial against Egyptian pacifist Maikel Nabil Sanad, who was arrested on 28 March 2011, and who appeared in front of the military court in Nasr City in Cairo on charges of "insulting the military by publishing false news about it" and "obstructing public security", came to a close on Sunday, 10 April 2011, with a sentence of three years' imprisonment. In an outrageous move by the military, family and friends waiting in front of the military court were told the trial was postponed, while in fact Maikel Nabil Sanad was being sentenced at the same time - alone.


Activists tortured and killed by the army, even after Mubarak’s resignation (A study supported with documents)
Does the Egyptian Army stand alongside the revolution?

On 11 February 2011, after the President’s stepping-down speech that was delivered by Omar Suliman (Vice-President of the Republic, and the former head of the Egyptian intelligence), many Egyptians rushed to declaring victory and the completion of the revolution….

I regret having to say the following, mostly because many of those who spoke out are my friends, but people have the right to know the truth.

Some people wanted to take advantage of the presence of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to get political positions by making deals with the Supreme Council. They knew that they could not achieve such positions through a regular democratic process. And some of them had connections with the secret service before the revolution, and supported the secret service by default (I don’t want to describe them as the Secret Service’s agents) and some others thought that the army was not a part of the July Military Regime! And people were therefore misled by the army declarations (Press Releases) and have accepted the army’s role in the transitional phase.

Subscribe to Right to Refuse to Kill

Stay up to date with our international antimilitarist activism.

Sign up to our email lists here