The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information criticized what it called the “severe cruelty” with which Egypt's government deals with Egyptian journalists. It expressed “strong disgruntlement” over the referral of chief editors of al-Masry al-Youm and al-Wafd dailies with three other journalists from the same newspapers to trial – due on December 4 – for allegedly violating a gag order imposed in the case of Suzanne Tamim. The Network said the government in Egypt is using gag orders to terrorize journalists. In a statement released yesterday, the Network says this gag order on Tamim's case is the fourth in less than three months and the second in this particular case. Last August, the Public Prosecution banned publication on Tamim's case during the investigations. One month later it did the same on a hush money case in which an Egyptian businessman close to ruling circles was involved. The third gag order was issued on the case of foreign tourists' kidnapped in southern Egypt in the same month. What threatens the society and violates its rights is “denying its access to information and muzzling the press," reads the statement, which adds that Egypt “is moving backward”. “We are still sure, though, that corruption circles in Egypt cannot stop the press from carrying out its role and, therefore, we have to support these journalists”, adds the statement. The decision, which also threatens the five referred people with one-year imprisonment and a fine, came although no decision was made regarding a lawsuit the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information lodged against gag orders examined by the Administrative Judiciary Court on December 9, i.e. five days after the five journalists' trial session. The Network in its lawsuit stressed the unconstitutionally of gag orders, saying they violate Egypt's Constitution and the phrase of Article 19 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is part of the Egyptian law. It also argued that the public prosecutor's decision was mere administrative rather than judicial and that this makes it null because the Public Prosecution's combination of investigation and indictment would cause more clashes of interests.
