Print

Send to Friend

Government Response to USA’s Human Rights Report 2001

The report prepared by the U.S. Department of State on Human Rights Practices-2001 came to stress the United States of America’s keenness on following up developments of human rights conditions in Yemen, embodying depth of Yemeni-U.S. governments bilateral cooperation in various fields, especially questions related to human rights, though in some of its paragraphs there are indications showing non-comprehension of the volume of cooperation and special relationship between the two countries. The report has projected some positive aspects the Yemeni Republic has achieved at the legislative or at the real situation, but some of its paragraphs make it clear that the side that prepared it was deriving its information from what is published in press without trying to verify accuracy or attempt to be sure about correctness of what has been published. In addition, in some of the report’s paragraphs there is a kind of confusion between different matters which we have tried to clarify. There are also some paragraphs and points that have been previously answered several times in our responses to former reports and we have not expected to be mentioned again. There is also some contradiction. For though there is projection of some accomplishments, the report in another part of it tries to belittle them under pretext of not reaching the required level or have not attained the necessary change the report sees as required, not taking into consideration of youthfulness of the democratic experiment in the Republic of Yemen and that human rights is one of the strategic issues necessitating much time and practice and training people on its principles and sublime concepts. Such things would not be realized merely by issuance of a law or a decree. It requires cooperation of all; governmental institutions, civil society organizations and regional and international organizations. With such cooperation we can redouble the asset of our accomplishments in various human rights areas.
The response takes three major premises:
1. General remarks on the report,
2. Reply to general allegations,
3. Refuting paragraphs of the report.

Firstly: General remarks on the report:

Despite the slight improvement in the report of the U.S. State Department on conditions of human rights in Yemen, most of its content came to be following the same style pursued in reports of previous years with regards to:

1. The repeated mistake regarding undisputed facts and axioms, as any error, even a very simple one, would men a reverse of their actual descriptions and also means a kind of blackout on those facts and axioms or at lest distorting them. For instance the report mentioned on its first page, second line, the phrase “civil war”. This phrase is completely wrong for there was absolutely no civil war in Yemen. What happened in the Summer of 1994 were insurgency events developed into an attempt for dividing the country once again. The events had been undermined and the blessed unity consolidated. This is a fact well-known to the whole world and course of events of that period had proved it. There is also the other phrase on the same page, “the country was reunified”. This phrase is an obvious mistake and very far away from what actually happened. We would wonder about when was Yemen divided after the unity in order to be “reunified”? Such accounting is negatively reflected on the rest paragraphs of the report and makes it loose credibility.

2. The form and style. For despite of the repeated indication that the situation in Yemen is not identical to situations in other countries, but that does not necessarily mean that all countries can be equal regarding their situations and circumstances. Yemen is a democratic state that respects human rights depending on values and teachings of the Islam religion and its cultural and civilization heritage. Its constitution and various legislations clearly stipulate that. This is a matter making it in a position much better than many other countries the form of the report can be applied to. It has been expected that the report would take this remark into consideration especially that it is closely related to the essence of the report that accordingly should have been changed in shape and style than what it is now.

3. The style of demonstrating content of the report’s paragraphs. Although this year’s report has pointed out the achievements realized in Yemen, but it has unjustifiably underestimated them and included in them certain generalizations quite irrelevant to reality or are merely unverified allegations.

4. Repetition that is creating imbalance in content of the report. Despite Yemen republic’s repeated responses to general and detailed allegations mentioned in earlier reports of the American State Department, we find them repeated in following reports. The present report is an example in dropping some of the allegations that have been responded to previously, it has nonetheless mentioned against most of what it has tackled in the previous report.

5. Regarding the themes approached in the report. Although international conventions and agreements do not allow interference with Islamic doctrines and principles of the Islamic law that are considered the source of all Yemeni legislations and there is no chance for making any criticism against its principles.

6. Inaccurate language interpretations that may be attributed to inaccuracy in translation. For instance the report mentioned that the constitution restricts freedom of expressing opinion and freedom of press. In fact the term “restrict” has been mistakenly interpreted with that of the phrase “limits of the law”, as it has been mentioned in text of the article but has been linguistically interpreted in an inaccurate way.




Secondly: Reply to general allegations contained in the report.
-The report said “Following a brief but bloody civil war in mid-1994, the country was reunified under Sana’a government.” This sentence is completely inexpressive of the fact. Event of 1994 Summer were not a civil war and no partition took place in order to use the word “reunification”, as the report mentioned. The unity has been existent since 1990.
- The report mentioned that “President Ali Abdullah Saleh was elected by the legislative to a 5-year term in 1994, and was elected to another 5-year term in the country’s first nationwide direct presidential election in September 1999.” In this respect we would like to clarify that election of the president in 1994 was held pursuant to text of the constitution that granted the elected parliament the right to electing the president for a 5-year term. In 1999 the president was elected according to first nationwide direct competitive electoral process. According to the latest constitutional amendments the term of the president was extended to 7 years beginning from the date of his being sworn in. Assuming presidency post must not exceed two terms, each for 7 years.
-In introduction of the report it is reported that “The parliament is not yet an effective counterweight to executive authority, although it increasingly demonstrates independence from government. The real political power rests with the executive branch, particularly the president.” It should be clearly understood that the state three powers are defined according to the constitution and are interconnected in line with what is stipulated in the constitution. Out of this the three powers work with full independence, harmony and integration, rarely to be found in developing countries. This reality makes the some think of the authority being embodied in one body. Nobody can give a categorical judgment on extent of the three powers independence unless he is fully aware of the nature of the political rule in the republic of Yemen and closely watches interaction among these three powers. To claim that the real power rests with the executive power, especially the president, is inconsistent to truth. The president enjoys certain authorities defined in the constitution. Article 105 of the constitution states ( The executive power is exercised on behalf of the people by president of the republic and council of ministers within the limits stipulated in the constitution), i.e. the ruling system in the republic, as known for parliamentary systems, is based on a form of bilateral executive power, where besides the president there is a government accountable to the parliament. The parliament also has the right to granting confidence to the government. The parliament has summoned the government on various occasions to discuss a variety of subjects. Moreover, the constitution has granted the parliament the right to summon the government or one of its members for interpellation, ( articles 96, 97). Parliament also entertains the right to vote on non-confidence against the government according to article 98. The legislative power has the right to assign a fact-finding committee on any topic and refers its reports enclosed with suitable recommendations, proposals and treatments and they are to be discussed at the parliament, to be then referred to the government for implementation.
- The report mentions that “The judiciary is nominally independent, but is weak and severely hampered by corruption, executive branch interference, and frequent failure of the authorities to enforce judgments.”
This sentence has been literally repeated in the previous reports and it has been already clarified that judiciary is an independent power, judicially, financially and administratively from other powers of the state ( article 149 of the constitution). Judiciary officials, including the minister of justice, are appointed from among judiciary circles themselves. As the constitution stipulates, the judges are independent in performing their job and issuing judgments. There is no doubt that judiciary suffers from some failures and passivities, but the judiciary power has worked out a plan for comprehensive reform aimed at eliminating negative aspects and all hindrances standing against this power. Beginnings of the reform plan are felt in extensive reforms in the judicial power structure as well as the large-scale movement of transfers and promotions. Things did not stop at this point, the judiciary power, represented by the Supreme Judiciary Council, has taken punitive measures against some judges and their assistants and members from prosecution proved to be involved in acts of corruption. Some of them were pensioned off and others were taken to court via the Accountability Council which is affiliated to the Supreme Judiciary Council. This is an evidence on seriousness of the general orientation towards reform of the judicial system in Yemen. We should not skip pointing out scarcity of potentials available for this power. It greatly hinders going ahead with implementing reformatory programs requiring allotment of credits meeting that end. In this regard we renew welcoming international assistance in this field offered by sisterly and friendly countries that would help push forward the process of judicial reform, particularly in areas of habilitation and training of judges and their assistants and members of prosecution and informing them on latest scientific developments related to fields of their jobs. Such internal and foreign training courses have already been fruitful with regard to training a good number of judges and their assistants and members of prosecution under the help of some international bodies such as the World Bank. As for the frequent failure to enforce some judgments, it is under the process of tackling it through joint meetings between the judiciary power and the bodies concerned with enforcement of judicial judgments. There is serious coordination to secure the enforcement of sentences.
- The report mentions that “ The primary state security apparatus is the Political Security Organization, an independent agency that reports directly to the president. The Criminal Investigative Department of the police reports to the Ministry of Interior and conducts most criminal investigations and makes most arrests. The Central Security Organization, also part of the Ministry of Interior, maintains a paramilitary force. Members of the security forces, particularly the Political Security Organization, numerous, serious human rights abuses.”

We want to make it clear that the Political Security Organization is one of the state’s central apparatuses established under a presidential decree No. 121 in 1992. The decree has defined tasks and authorities of the apparatus as well as its affiliation to presidential office. Also, duties and authorities of the organization are no secret and the decree is open for study to citizens. Constitution and law define all measures of arrests and inspection and any violation of them is considered a crime punishable by law. As for the “numerous, serious human rights abuses”, it has become a phrase repeated in each report year after year. This indication is not true and inconsistent with reality. There is nothing confirming it on the ground or certain incidents to be taken as evidence. As for the remark that on the Criminal Investigative Department and its “making most arrests”, we would like to say that there are no arrest campaigns but rather precautionary measures against those suspected of committing crimes. The department carries out tasks of detecting crime and those involved in it according to regulations defined by the law.




- The report mentions that “There are significant limitations on citizens’ ability to change their government.”. This is also a paragraph repeated in previous reports and had been responded to by elucidating that the legal and legitimate ways for changing governments in democratic countries is holding elections. This is what our country is doing through parliamentary elections for the years 1993, 1997 and the presidential elections in 1999 as well as local councils elections in 2001.
The report has also mentioned that “Members of the security forces killed a number of persons during the year. Members of he security forces tortured and otherwise abused persons, and continued to arrest and detain citizens arbitrarily, especially oppositionists in the south and other persons regarded as ‘ secessionists.’”
- Generally, this is an incorrect allegation for there are no practices by security members regarding killing persons nor phenomena of arbitrary arrests of persons whether oppositionists or others. Concerning allegations on cases of torture and abuses, Yemen confirms they are very limited and rare cases. They do not form a phenomenon or organized operation or widespread to be mentioned in such a report. Those members from the security apparatus responsible for such rare cases of torture and violation of human rights have been brought to court and verdicts have been issued against those proved to have committed them. Trial measures are still going on concerning others accused of such acts. It is groundless regarding what has been mentioned about targeting certain areas or governorates. All citizens are equal before the law. The report should have pointed out such cases so that the concerned authorities be able to investigate into such allegations and whether they are correct and consequently to take legal measures against them.

The report has also mentioned that “Members of the security forces killed a number of persons during the year. Members of the security forces tortured and otherwise abused persons, and continued to arrest and detain citizens arbitrarily, especially oppositionists in the south and other persons regarded as ‘secessionists.’”

- Generally, this is an incorrect allegation for there are no practices by security members regarding killing persons nor phenomena of arbitrary arrests of persons whether oppositionists or others. Concerning allegations on cases of torture and abuses, Yemen confirms they are very limited and rare cases. They do not form a phenomenon or organized operation or widespread to be mentioned in such a report. Those members from the security apparatus responsible for such rare cases of torture and violation of human rights have been brought to court and verdicts have been issued against those proved to have committed them. Trial measures are still going on concerning others accused of such acts. It is groundless regarding what has been mentioned about targeting certain areas or governorates. All citizens are equal before the law. The report should have pointed out such cases so that the concerned authorities be able to investigate into such allegations and whether they are correct and consequently to take legal measures against them.
The report mentions that “Prison conditions were poor, and some detainees were held in private prisons not authorized by the government.”

- We would like to clarify that the government exerts all efforts possible to improve conditions in prisons and to uplift services and utilities in them. A good long distance has been traversed in this respect, the report in question has admitted that. Shortage in capabilities and insufficient support by concerned bodies constitute the major cause behind disability to improve prison conditions to the level aspired for. The authorities concerned at the government, in cooperation with a number of international bodies and organizations, are now studying the issue of improving prison conditions, including solving the problems of women who have served their sentences and still not released. Many measures have been taken in this regard, among which are separating juvenile delinquents from adult inmates and put them at special care houses where they can continue their education and practice various social and sport activities. Further practical measures pertaining to this question are to be taken soon.
One of the measures the government has taken is a decree by the president on setting up a special committee handling supervision on prison conditions in general and helping needy inmates sentenced to payable special and civil indebtedness by paying for them the sums they are indebted in order to be released from prison. This process is done periodically every year. It is worthy here to praise the role this committee plays and the effective role the Supreme National Committee on Human Rights ( SNCHR) undertakes. SNCHR has formed several committees entrusted with field inspection of prisons throughout governorates of the republic and offering suggestions for improving prison conditions, and these committees actually need huge sums of money to carry out their tasks. The government, represented by the SNCHR, and in cooperation with some international and local organizations, has organized a number of training courses for prison officials in several governorates aimed at providing them with awareness on human rights and improving performance inside prisons. Many committees have been set up for investigation and search regarding the presence of private prisons unauthorized by the government. Those prisons have been already closed down and prevented for good.

The report mentions in another part of it that “Political security officers have broad discretion over perceived national issues. Despite constitutional constraints, security officers routinely monitor citizen’s activities, search their homes, detain citizens for questioning, and mistreat detainees.”




-A presidential decree on creation of PSO No. 121, 1992 has defined its authorities in chapter 4, article 7. Members of the apparatus are granted authorities similar of those men in charge of judiciary monitoring and could carry out investigations about those being strongly suspected or there is authenticated information against them impinging the state security and safety. Consequently the PSO performs legally granted authorities pursuant to law No. 13 for the year 1994 regarding penal measures under supervision and direction of public prosecution. It refers all detected sabotage crimes and activities to the public prosecution to complete investigation measures and to deal with them according to the law. Responding to what the report has mentioned about PSO officers routinely monitoring citizens’ activities and search their homes, we confirm that this is groundless allegation and lacking of evidence.

The report mentions that “The law limited freedom of speech and of the press, and the government continued to harass, intimidate, and detain journalists. Journalists practiced self-censorship.”
To clarify this point we confirm this is a presentation of allegations characterized by generalization and fall short of evidence. In fact the constitution absolutely does not limit freedom of speech or other public liberties. This freedom is regulated in accordance with article of Press and Publications Law No. 20 for the year 1990, as it is known that any unregulated work changes to anarchy.
The report says

-This point as is the case for the previous one characterized by generalization and ambiguity and lacks pinpointing certain cases to be cited. As a matter of fact the freedoms of assembly, religion and movement are rights guaranteed by texts in the constitution and the law . These liberties could not be limited but through the law whenever it is necessary, such as restricting movement of some suspects or accused until proving either their innocence or guilt. Religious tenet freedom is safeguarded in all circumstances taking into account that, as a general principle, that there are no religious minorities in Yemen except for some Jewish or Christian individuals or groups, however these sects are free in practicing their own religious rituals without any restrictions imposed on them and this is applied to certain Islamic religious sects such as al-Bohra. Care and protection are rendered to sanctities and worshipping places of sects. It is very seldom to happen that any event or attack of religious character takes place against them. In case of any such incident, legal measures on protection of religious faith are taken immediately.
The report also mentions that “Violence and discrimination against women were problems. Female genital mutilation (FGM)was practiced on a limited scale, primarily along the coastal areas of the Red Sea. The government publicly discouraged FGM.”

- For clarification purposes the Yemeni woman have been occupying leading posts. She is now working with the government, in parliament, local councils, judiciary career, in political parties, civil society organizations and police force. The American report, however, still underestimates the woman role in development and progress in all fields. In this context we point out the government’s interest in the woman role in the development process that has become very clear through reconsidering many issues related to woman. The council of ministers has approved some amendments of some legal texts pertaining woman’s rights in a move considered as advanced at the level of legislations connected to enhancement of public rights and freedoms, including those approved recently concerning laws on nationality, civic status, civilian register, prison organization and personal status. Regarding female genital mutilation, these habits are considered as extinct and very limited and mostly characterized as individual behavior. The government however has issued a decision prohibiting hospitals and health centers from performing genital mutilation operations, after it has carried out an awareness campaign on risks of such activities on females health through health programs devoted to tackling maternity and childhood care, with concentration on reproductive health. These efforts have produced results curbing this practice resulting from ignorance and illiteracy common in those remote coastal areas influenced by African customs.

The report has also mentioned that “There was some discrimination against persons with disabilities and against religious, racial and ethnic minorities.” Responding to this point we confirm that it has been clarified above about the religious freedom. As for what is mentioned about discrimination against some segments of the society, it is a groundless allegation lacking of defining or evidence or event mentioning cases to be cited. The law candidly stipulates equality among all citizens. Holding different jobs is done according the conditions set up by the law for each job. Certain positions are allocated for the disabled. Six-hundred jobs have been lately allocated for the disabled for the year 2002. More detailed clarification will be in our response in the portion about the disabled.




The report also mentions that “The government influences labor unions. Child labor was a problem.”
The government stays aloof from directly or indirectly influencing labor unions that function within the legislation regulating this voluntary work, despite that some of these organizations have inflicted dam age on the country through some strikes and sits-in. Perhaps the author of the report is confusing between the government’s influence through the political parties represented in it, which certainly entertain a considerable weight at these labor unions. This makes the governmental and labor unions policies in some aspects as similar to some does not necessarily reflect a government influence as much as a reflection of an influence a partisan and political character. And this is a familiar matter in democratic countries, including the United States. Some of these labor unions engage in intense partisan conflicts and the government in such cases adopt an attitude of a spectator. Yemen has in some periods of time witnessed feverish conflict and some kind of duality in some of these organizations and some of them have challenged legitimacy of each other, a matter that made courts as the final resort to solve these problems. We do not deem judiciary as a factor of influencing freedom of labor unions but the safe reference for the conflicting parties.
As for the point mentioned in the report concerning the child labor, relevant laws have been issued on the age permitting work and filing jobs and child labor is prohibited. Child labor is limitedly seen within family framework or working in agriculture or other sectors. This matter is also connected to the economic condition the Yemeni citizen is leading. It is difficult for the government to activate legal texts banning child labor under the economic condition that pushes some families to drive their children to labor market. We expect this phenomenon to shrink gradually with the increase in awareness of its dangers and improvement of the economic situation.

Thirdly: Refuting paragraphs of the report:

Section one: Respect for the integrity of the person, including freedom from:
a_ arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life:
Under this point the report mentions that “Members of the security forces killed a number of persons during the year. There were some reports during the year that security forces at checkpoints killed or injured persons whom they believed were engaging in criminal activity and resisting arrest.” Before responding to this paragraph, a question is raised about the reason behind the literally repeating of this allegation in reports of the American Department of State, although basically it is illogical to report it because of its unidenticality to neither supposition nor to reality. Security organization undertakes protection of the persons’ life, liberties and properties, but in the report it is changed into a killer authority. It is regrettable that such an allegation be repeated in a manner void of even one citation. It seems that the side that prepared the report has forgotten that members of police or security are from the people and work for protection of them and their personal and general properties. During performance of this noble duty they are subject to laws and regulations worked out accurately in a way securing no excess in using the authorities granted to them. Yemeni legislator has not overlooked working out legal measures for applying deterrent punishment. This matter guarantees implementation of laws and regulations on part of security organizations. This part of allegations has been responded to under the “General allegations” portion.

The report mentions “In January human rights Forum for a Civil Society reported that Mohammed al-Yafia, who was convicted in 1996 for his involvement in a series of bombings in Aden and who had complained of being tortured in 1997, had died under suspicious circumstances in al-Mansura Prison in Aden.”
We clarify that it is groundless that the said person was subject to any torture and it has absolutely not being proved to being tortured. he had been convicted for committing a blasting incident and the judicial sentence of six-year imprisonment was issued against him on 12 April 1996. On 16 December 2001 he was transferred to hospital due to his suffering from pains in his chest of which he died later. The medical report stated that he was suffering from dyspnea which made a sudden heart attack cause his death. That was a natural death and his being in prison at that time does not mean that his death happened under suspicious circumstances, as the American report said or that he had undergone torture because torturing is prohibited legally. There is no reason for suspicion of his being tortured and his family was informed then to receive his corpse.
In the same paragraph of the report there was mentioned that “In April a demonstrator was killed and another wounded when a soldier fired into a crowd protesting a zoning decision in the al-Dalah governorate. The soldier reportedly was arrested, but at year’s end there was no information about whether he was disciplined.”




To make this p[point clear we say that while security men were doing their job with the office of the state real estates to stop a building built at random by a citizen, the transgressor citizen, along with others, started resisting the security men, aimed their weapons at them and that led to a clash and exchange of fire killing one of the resisting men. Legal measures had been taken against those who caused the incident from both sides and it was referred to prosecution. The case is still under judicial consideration. It is incorrect that the dead person was among other demonstrators because there was not a demonstration but rather a resistance operation by some men against security men trying to implement the law.
The report says “In August 2000, Sabah Seif Salem reportedly died while being detained in a prison in the al-Udain district of Ibb governorate. Her family claimed that security officials tortured her to extract a confession of adultery.”
This claim has been previously mentioned and it was responded to. Again we clarify that the woman died during labor as confirmed by the medical examiner, and this was included in the American report, section C .
The report mentions that “On October 12, 2000, terrorists in a small bomb-laden boat attacked the USS Cole, a U.S. naval ship, as it refueled in Aden harbor. The explosion killed 17 sailors and wounded 39 others. The investigation into the attack was ongoing, and several suspects were in custody at year’s end.”

The issue of the attack against the American destroyer was condemned by the Yemeni government, considering it a terrorist act. Investigation and search for the suspects measures had been taken and a number of persons suspected of being involved in the incident had been arrested and detained, and they are still under interrogation. Security apparatus is still following up measures of investigation and search for the escaped and suspects in the case.

-- Disappearance
Under this heading the report mentions the following points:
- “Members of the security forces continue to arrest and detain citizens for varying periods of time without charge or notification to their families. Many detainees are associated with YSP or other opposition parties and are accused of being ‘secessionists.’ Such detentions are temporary, detainees typically are released within weeks or, at most, months. Those who are not released eventually are charged.”

Such claims are criticized of being characterized by generalization and not specified. It seems that such information is obtained from unreliable sources that intend to purposefully do wrong to Yemen without any justification. All the above allegations are quite groundless. Measures of arrest and detention are implemented according to legal controls not able to be violated. Any violations of such controls, those, upon whom such violations are done, have the right to bring lawsuit to judiciary that in turn would conduct investigation and issue the just punishment against those violating legal texts. Author of the report is fully aware that collecting evidence in Yemen or the United States would take time so that the general prosecution be able to make an accusation to or release the suspect. Detention is a precautionary measure carried out or ordered by judiciary only.
As for the issue of coercive and involuntary disappearance, there are two sides for it:

1: Those missing in 1986 events:
It has been agreed with the UNHRC to deal with their situations. This question is deemed as over after the Yemeni government has fulfilled all its pledges in this regard.
2: Those claimed to be missing during and after 1994 events:
The government had already stated it outright stand by totally refusing this claim, for it has been proved that those claimed to be disappeared, are alive living in some countries. They want to use this allegation for purely political reasons. Voluntary appearance of many of those claimed to be disappeared during the war of 1994 and after them has proved falsity of any allegation in this respect.

The report mentions that “In 2000 a Norwegian diplomat on vacation was killed near Sana’a during an exchange of fire between checkpoint police and his abductors.”
During the investigation into the killing incident, abductors identities have been detected and measures are ongoing to chase and arrest them to bring them to justice.




-- Torture and other cruel, inhuman treatment of punishment
At the beginning of this point there was mentioned that “The Constitution is ambiguous regarding the prohibition of cruel or inhuman punishment.”
The Yemeni constitution is never ambiguous but rather stipulated many necessary guarantees and the valid laws have given enough protection of human rights, most important is his right to security and life, which agrees to great extent with international guarantees set up to ensure protection of the rights of persons facing the death sentence, as approved by decision of the economic and social council 1984/, dated 25 May 1984 in its nine articles published in (International Documents Collection), the United Nations-New York 1993. Yemen is one of more than 90 countries that did not sign on the voluntary protocol, annexed to International Covenant on Civil and Political rights on cancellation of death penalty. As the human right to security and life comes at the forefront of his personal freedom on which all his rights are based, we point here to the more important guarantees and protection the constitution has secured and stipulated in the above mentioned valid laws as follows:

_ Article 48, paragraph (a) of the constitution stipulated ( The state secures for the citizens their personal freedom and preserves their dignity and security. The law defines the cases in which the citizen’s freedom is restricted and it is not allowed to limit the freedom any one but under judgment of a specialized court.) Also article (11) of the punitive measures law does stipulates on this.

_Article 47 of the constitution stipulates that ( criminal responsibility is personal and there would be no crime or punishment unless upon a legal text and each accused is innocent until proved guilty with a decisive judicial decision and it is not permitted to enact a law punishing any acts by retroactive effect). The same rules are stipulated in articles 2, 3, 4 of the law of penal procedures.

_T o protect the human right to life against any suppression, article 234 of criminal and punishment law mentioned the cases where people are sentenced to death as follows:

- He who purposefully kills a guiltless person, would be punished by death sentence.....on condition that his blood relative demands that and there should be a lawful evidence. Confirmation of death sentence is permitted if the guilty was known of being evil, or committed the murder in a savage way or killed two or more persons.

- Article 434, punitive procedures stipulated that ( If the death sentence, or castigation would consequently cause eliminating the soul or part of the body, the prosecution, even without challenge of any of the litigants, should refer the case to the supreme court supported with a memorandum indicating its opinion. The court in this instance is permitted to consider theme of the case.”
-Article 469, punitive procedures mentions that execution of judgments in any crime is not allowed unless in accordance with an irrevocable sentence of an obligatory execution issued by a competent court.
_ Article 479, punitive procedures indicated that judgments of capital punishment or castigation issued against he who is convicted should not be implemented but after approval of president of the republic on the judgment.
_Article 480, punitive procedures mentions that the president of the republic issues a decree on implementation of the sentence by punishments or castigations, but concerning the death sentence there could bee a decision taken either on the execution, or changing the punishment or issuing a pardon for the convicted.
_Article 484 and others pertaining to punitive procedures have also stated non-execution of death or castigation punishments causing loss of life or part of the body on official national days, and days marking festivities of the convicted religion. The execution is postponed for the expectant women till she gives birth, and the suckling mother till she finishes feeding her infant for two years and there exists a custodian person, and the woman is put in prison till the time of execution.
_The constitution and valid laws have offered more safeguards and protection in a manner preserving human security and dignity and not to allow his arrest or search or detention unless he is caught red-handed or under an order dictating necessity of investigation issued by a judge or general prosecution pursuant to rules of the law. The constitution has also not allowed watching or seeking information about a person unless according to the law. It has also banned physical, or psychological or moral torture and also coercive confession during interrogation. It has prevented imprisoning or detaining any person in places not subject to prisons law. There is the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment at the time of arrest or during detention or imprisonment. Other safeguards contained in texts of the constitution and laws are those in paragraphs (b, c, d, h.) of article 48 of the constitution and articles stipulated in rules of punitive procedures No’s ( 6, 7, 13,70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 172, 176, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193).
And what the criminal law in its articles (166, 167, 168, 169, 246, 247.)
The report mentioned some incidents related to execution of punishments against theft and adultery against two persons convicted by court.




Penalty is in the core of rules of Islamic law. The Yemeni people are Muslim and accepted the Islamic law as a style, program and system for judgment, and consequently no one is allowed to force his wish instead of the nation’s will. Execution of these penalties is performed in the narrowest scope and particularly in egregious crimes against security, the regime, public stability, morals of he nation and her high beliefs and values. Yemen is one of 94 countries that did not sign the protocol on canceling the death penalty and nevertheless it is committed to the nine guarantees included in the various national legislations above mentioned.
The report mentions that “Authorities in some cases arrest without charge and imprison refugees, persons with mental disabilities, and illegal immigrants and place them in prisons with common criminals.”
-Refugees rights are safeguarded in the constitution. Yemen deals with refugees out of a religious and human standpoint. Accordingly, Yemen has signed and approved many conventions and agreements in this regard. Upon this stand the refugees in Yemen entertain all their legal rights. As for those with mental disabilities, it is incorrect that they are placed in prisons with common criminals because there are sanitariums and psychiatric centers to accommodate and treat such cases. Maybe closeness of those institutions to prison buildings made preparatory of the report confuses between them and those prisons. It is no secret that the limited number of such sanitariums and centers constitutes a concern for the government. As for the illegal immigrants they are treated according to the law. They are retained and then deported via their countries’ embassies or through specialized organizations in a manner securing their dignity.
The report mentions that “The president appointed a high-level interministerial committee, chaired by the minister of interior, to inspect all major prisons in the country.”

Pursuant to the president’s directives a high-level committee chaired by head of the supreme court, head of the presidency office as vice-chairman, and interior minister, minister of justice and general prosecutor as members was formed to inspect and investigate into conditions of prisons and prisoners. In addition, there is a sub-committee at the level of governorates and representatives of concerned sides at the higher committee. There is a regular and continual inspection of prisons by heads, deputies and members of general prosecutions in areas under their own jurisdiction.
-The report also mentions that “The government tightly controls access to detention facilities by NGO’s”
This paragraph is far from being true because the NGO’s that are active in human rights activities and part of their programs is following up conditions of prisoners, usually perform their role in coordination with prisons administrations and are not prevented from entering prisons but rather are granted all facilities. This is because upgrading situation of prisons represents a common target and needs joining efforts among all parties including NGOs.
_At the end of the same paragraph it was mentioned that “Political Security Organization does not permit access to its detention centers.”

To make it clear there are no centers for detention inside the PSO and it does not exceeds its authorities granted to it according to the law pertaining to men of judicial monitoring. Those who are detained after having strong available suspicions or authenticated information, causing damage to security and safety of the state, they are detained in places allocated according to prisons’ law in cooperation with the ministry of interior. These are places authorized by the law on arrest and detention.

d: Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile
Under this point the report says, “Despite these constitutional and other legal provisions, arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention without charge are common practices.”
- The answer is included in this allegation itself. The valid constitution and laws do not allow the existence of such common practices. In order that the report is characterized by credibility there should be a mention of cases upon which we can respond in a refuting manner. As the allegation comes in contradictory and unspecified way, it is then far from reason. Details have previously been mentioned in the course of replying to what has been mentioned in the general allegations section.
The report says “In May the PSO detained journalist Hassan al-Zaidi and held him incommunicado for 16 days, at times in solitary confinement. In September the PSO again detained al-Zaidi for two weeks.”
- In reality the above mentioned had been detained on 8 September 2001 due to his connection with kidnappers of the Trade Attaché at the German embassy and had been released after the end of the case. It is not true that he was held in solitary confinement during the period of his detention.
In the same paragraph or the report “In practice many authorities abide by these provisions only if bribed.”
- We want to clarify here that decisions of release are compulsory to implement by the concerned bodies as they are issued by the same authority that has the right to order imprisonment and there is no room for compromise regarding decisions of release or detention. This is stated in the law. It would have been better if the report mentioned some of such cases to be responded to.
In another part the report mentions that, “Amar Mahmoud Ali Abdo al-Madhaji was arrested by Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officials in May and held without charge for approximately 6 weeks. Al-Madhaji’s family claimed he was walking down the street in Sana’a, coerced a confession from him regarding his purported involvement in terrorist activities, and then held him incommunicado. The government denied the family’s version of al-Madhaji’s arrest.”
- For clarification we say that Amar, the son of Mahmoud Ali al-Madhaji was held on charge of trying to communicate with a foreign side and he was carrying a letter addressed to the U.S. ambassador on the incident of USS Cole Destroyer and the information in it proved to be untrue. He was charged with offering false statement and troubling authorities. The case was referred to prosecution on 2 July 2001.




In another point the report mentioned that “In cases in which a criminal suspect is at large, security forces in some instances detain a relative while the suspect is being sought.”
- This is a groundless allegation. Constitution and laws have safeguarded the citizen’s freedom unless he had committed a crime requiring his detention. This is a general irrevocable rule. If it happens in some cases that a criminal suspect’s relatives are held i means that either they are involved in the same case with the suspects or for sheltering them. These are very rarely happening cases, but they happened then the law is the reference to be referred to.
The report mentions that “Aziz Mohammed Musaid, who was arrested in Taiz in September 1998 and charged with intent to commit adultery, was released on bail in December 2000; however, his trial remained pending. Musaid’s case has languished and he remained in jail because the presiding judge, Abdul Jabar Taha al-Kharasani, refused to adjucate the case. In October 1999, the minister of interior ordered al-Kharasani to turn over his cases, including Musaid’s, to another judge, but he refused to do so. Al-Kharasani was finally compelled to do so in December 2000, and another judge has taken the case.”
- It has been previously clarified in detail that the mentioned case was decided by the court and that tackling it in the way it has been mentioned in the report is considered a deformation of laws and intervention in internal affairs because the interior minister usually does not give orders on turning over cases for that is the job entrusted with judiciary itself. Assessing the judge’s work is the task of judicial inspection authority and giving directives to the judge is defined in the judiciary power law , which entrusted that to judiciary. The minister of interior could not give his orders to the judge to turn over the cases to another judge or court because that means interference by the executive power in affairs of the judiciary power. The constitution and law provisions have prohibited that and there is no nonsuit due to prescription. The interior minister is within the executive power which is subject to prosecution supervision and implemntor of orders, decisions and sentences issued by judiciary pursuant to texts of constitution and provisions of valid laws.

The report has also mentioned that “Unauthorized private prisons also exist in tribal areas in which the government does not exercise authority effectively. Persons detained in such prisons often are held for strictly personal reasons an d without trial or sentencing.”
- This point has been previously made clear within the reply on “General Allegations” heading. We affirmed that there were absolutely no unofficial prisons and prisoners are committed to official prisons in accordance with specific measures, laws and rules. The one who prepared the report should have defined whereabouts of the prisons he meant.
The report says “In December the government deported approximately 100 foreigners, many of whom were studying at Muslim religious schools, who allegedly were in the country illegally. The government claimed that these persons were suspected of inciting violence or engaging in criminal acts by promoting religious extremism. The government deported them using existing laws that required foreigners to register with the police or immigration authorities within a month of arrival in the country.”
- The state, represented by the ministry of interior seeks to check up persons breaching Yemeni immigration and passport laws and to take legal measures against them, including deportation. As a result of campaigns carried out by concerned authorities at immigration and passport authority, the mentioned students were detected and some were deported for violating the law and the remainders of the group were not deported after they had rectified their position. This is done by various states for the implementation of their existing laws and rules.
e; Under the paragraph of “Denial of Fair Public Trial”, it has been mentioned that “The constitution provides for an ‘autonomous’ judiciary and independent judges; however, the judiciary is not fully independent, and it is weak and severely hampered by corruption, executive branch interference, and the frequent failure of the he authorities to enforce judgments Judges are appointed by the executive branch, and some have been harassed, reassigned, or removed from office following rulings against he government.”

This phrase has been repeated previously and here is a detailed clarification of the points mentioned though the title of the paragraph itself is unacceptable on the whole.
First of all judges are appointed by the Judiciary Power and appointment decisions are issued by the Judiciary Supreme Council that is the highest at the Judiciary Power chaired by the president of the republic. This seems the reason why the person who prepared the report confused between the executive and the judicial powers in the question of appointing judges.
It is absolutely incorrect that the judges who issue rulings against the government are removed. many of judges who have issued such rulings are still working normally at their courts and many of them have occupied senior posts at Judiciary and we wonder where the report has acquire such a mistaken information. Concerning judiciary weakness, it is a questionable matter as all judges are not appointed in judiciary career unless they have graduated from the college of law. Moreover, before granting him this title, the judge should have passed two years of study at the Higher Institute for Judiciary and then he would be granted a degree of assistant judge. The ministry of justice has, in cooperation with governmental and non-governmental sides, exerted great efforts in training and qualification of judges and members of general prosecution in fields of human rights, public liberties. Those efforts have yielded acceptable results and played good role in the process of awareness of this important segment regarding human rights. The call is still existing for international organisations and donor countries interested in this field to continue their support .
The report has also mentioned that “In August 2000, members of the Bani Dhubian tribe kidnapped judge Adul Rahman Abu Talib....”
- For clarification we mention that security forces managed to release the judge through mediation of some notables in order to secure his safety, and even before interference of security forces the mediatory people succeeded in convincing the kidnappers to release the judge.
It has been mentioned in the report that “Judges at times ‘ appoint’ attorneys present in their courtrooms to represent indigent defendants; however, such attorneys legally are not required to take the case, although most accept in order to avoid displeasing judges before whom they must appear later.”
- Responding to this allegation appointing attorney by judges is obligatory according to the law of legal profession. The allegation of any moral coercion in appointing attorneys is having no evidence.
The report mentions that “By law prosecutors are a part of the judiciary and independent of the government; however, in practice prosecutors consider themselves as an extension of the police. The do not receive normal judicial training that judges do, nor do they fulfill their legal obligation to prosecute police who delay reporting arrests and detentions.”
- To clarify this point we affirm that the Attorney General is a complainant chief witness in the republic and has the right to file it. Al members of the general prosecution, at various levels in the governorates, work as deputies of the Attorney General, entrusted with supervision and continued regular inspection of detention centres, prisons and juvenile reformatory institutions to be sure about legitimacy of imprisonment and arrest, according to paragraph (g) of Judiciary Power No. (1) for 1991 and according to the prosecution establishment law and provisions of punitive procedures law and other relevant laws. He is also a supervisor on work of judicial monitoring officers. All of them, each within their authorities and specialization, are subordinates of the Attorney General and also subordinates to his deputies in the governorates and districts. The Attorney General deputies are also supervisors on judicial monitoring officers with regard to their jobs, and that is in accordance with article (52) of Judicial Power and provisions of punitive procedures law and other relevant laws.
F: Arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence.

The report mentions that “Despite constitutional provisions against government interference with privacy, security forces routinely search homes and private offices, monitor telephones, read personal mail, and otherwise intrude in personal matters for alleged security reasons, Such activities are conducted without legally issued warrants or judicial supervision. Security forces regularly monitor telephone conversations and interfere with telephone services of government critics and opponents.”

- These measures are not taken without supervision of the judiciary and whenever it is necessary and in accordance with the valid legislation and laws. They are not as the report mentioned of being carried out haphazardly, . It is also incorrect that security forces monitor telephone conversations of opponents or critics of the government. The available large margin of democracy and freedom of opinion make those people express themselves whether in press, other local and intentional media, or by holding symposiums and activities. They publicly criticize the government policies so the government does not have to resort to such outdated actions characterizing the totalitarian eras.

SECTION 2
Respect for civil liberties, including:
a: Freedom of speech and press
The report mentions “The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press ‘ within limits of the law’, however,the government influences the media and restricts press freedom.”.

- We would like to make it clear here that Yemen’s constitution does not limit freedom of speech, as article 42 stipulates. Law No. 25 for 1990 on press and publications guarantees the freedom of expression of opinion and thought. There should not be any mixing between limiting freedom of speech and abiding by the law regulating the question of expressing thought and opinion.

The report says “Some security officials attempt to influence press coverage by threatening, harassing, and detaining journalists.”

- This is a general point and has no evidence. What it mentions is inconsistent with the constitution and the law. Reality of press in Yemen stems from democracy, political pluralism and freedom of opinion and speech. The evidence is that each political party owns one or more newspaper. No party organ newspaper has been suspended because of its criticizing the government policy.

The report also mentions that “The relative freedom of press permitted between unification (1990) and the civil war (1994) has not been reestablished.”

- Decisions and laws regulating the press law issued in 1990 have not been changed. This means that the report contradicts itself and proves in this point the contrary of what allegations it has brought forth in the previous point which in part refutes what is mentioned in this paragraph. The opposite is correct. In course of time the experiment has been refurbished and consequently all newspapers in general have been committed, in what they publish, to the law and order in a situation quite contrary to the chaos that was prevalent at the beginning of the experiment. At that stage the newspapers gave themselves the liberty to impinge on the national constants, enrage the spirit of difference and division and instigate fanatical matters. The best description of the situation is chaos in its stark meaning rather than freedom.

Under the same paragraph the report says “The ministry of information influences the media through its control of most printing presses, subsidies to certain newspapers, and its ownership of the country’s sole television and radio outlets.”

- The government does not control but of three printing presses while there are more than 20 commercial printing presses in the capital Sana’a only let alone the number of printing presses in other governorates. Concerning the government subsidies they do not exceed 5000 rials a month offered by the ministry of information to each newspaper, whether it were party organ or independent. This stresses the government’s keenness on supporting press and consequently supporting the freedom of expression, not the contrary, as it was mention in the report. The government does not have any objection against owning TV. or radio outlets or TV. channels by individuals or private or partisan organizations as long as there is legal legislation regulates that and as long as they abided by them. The question is the unavailability of financial and human potentials with those who are willing to enter this field.

The report mentions that “Press law regulations specify that newspapers must apply annually to the government for licensing renewal, and that they must show continuing evidence of $4,375 (700,000) in operating capital. Some journalists claim that regulations were designed to drive some opposition newspapers out of business.”

- For clarification of this point we confirm that regulations are organizational procedures aimed at defining the operating capital of the independent newspapers only. Opposition parties newspapers are not meant by this decision. They are treated in the same way as the newspapers of mass organizations and those of governmental institutions. According to this clarification, the targeted is not freedom of opposition press but rather the contrary. Opposition press is exempted from organizational financial measures that are applied to commercial press.

In another portion, the report mentions “Although newspapers ostensibly are permitted to criticize the government, journalists at times censor themselves, especially when writing on such sensitive issues as government policies toward the southern governorates, relations with Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments, and official corruption. The penalties for exceeding these self-imposed limits may be arrest for libel, dismissal from employment or extrajudicial harassment.”

- The report has previously repeated the same allegation since 1§996 and in the same generalized phrasing and in this year it has not come with anything new. It could have depended on certain realities if what the report has mentioned was true so that we would be able to give our reply in detail. Regarding what has been mentioned that the ‘ journalists at times censor themselves’, we think this is a good initiative. The successful journalist is he who can communicate the message to the reader and at the same time keeps to the national constants and legal texts. Many newspapers and journalists have learnt the ways of using texts of the law through exploiting any gaps if existing in them and evading commitment of apparent violations, as well as to let pass sharp criticism against the government or any of its institutions. These are among the advantages acquired by the press through accumulated practice and experience. Those who exceeded texts of he law and gave themselves the freedom to attack whoever they want without fear of accountability, judiciary is then the judge and protector of rights of citizens or institutions.

The report mention that “Following what it deemed was irresponsible reporting on an alleged military helicopter crash, in May the ministry of information issued a circular to local newspapers and magazines prohibiting publication of information or news pertaining to the armed forces before ‘consulting’ with the ministry of defense.”

- That circulation had been issued according to the law of press and publication and its rules of procedure that ban publication of any information or news pertaining to armed forces and issues of defense and security unless they are derived from their responsible and officially authorized sources and within the limits permitting them.

The report mentions that “During the year, journalists continued to be detained for questioning for short periods of time for writing articles that were critical of the government or that the government considered sensitive, primarily issues involving Saudi Arabia. However, the decline in number of such incidents from 1999 continued...”

- Here the report once again is contradicting itself . In the above paragraph it mentions that the government allows its being criticized by the press but now it mentions a general allegation that the government detains the journalist who criticizes it. This is an allegation in need of a proof from reality that affirms non-existence of any detention of any journalist because of his profession as a journalist and because of an article he has written. But this does not mean that the journalist is above the law . He is as any other citizen. If he has broken the law or violated others’ rights, he would be responsible for what may result from violating the laws and rules, as any other citizens.

The report claims that “In January a Sana’a court found al-Shumu’ newspaper guilty of libeling Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and ordered it to suspend publication for a month.... Al-Shumu’s editor in chief, Seif al-Hadhiri was also fined $59 (10,000 riyals).”

- Al-Shumu’ newspaper had appealed that verdict and the case is still before the court of appeals, not decided yet. The newspaper is independent and not an affiliate of the ruling General People’s Party, as claimed in the report.

The report says “In February 2000, the ministry of information referred a complaint from the ministry of foreign affairs to the Sana’a court against Dr. Qassem Sallam, the secretary general of the opposition Arab Socialist Baath Party, and the party’s newspaper, Al-Ihya al-Arabi, for an article Sallam wrote entitled ‘The Dangerdom of Saudi Arabia’ which alleged that there were supporters in the Saudi leadership.”

- The ministry of information did not bring a case against Dr Qassem Sallam but rather referred a complaint it had received from the foreign ministry to press and publications prosecution which the side authorized to investigate into complaints against newspaper. The prosecution had undertaken the investigation in the complaint that said that the newspaper’s editor in chief Abdul Wahid Hawash published articles in which he had targeted some members in the Saudi leadership, a matter makes him liable to legal accountability. The government of Yemen, out of its keenness on higher national interests and distinguished relations with all countries, does not permit using territories of the Yemen Republic for any kind of assailment on any sisterly or friendly country. The press law categorically prohibits criticizing any personality on a personal basis. Personal libel is legally prohibited against ordinary people therefore when it concern officials or kings in other countries it is taken as a serious matter. Such irresponsible handling by press essentially impinges on higher national interests and also encroaches Yemen’s foreign relations and policies.
The report says “ Jamal Ahmed Amer was detained and held incommunicado for six days for writing an article critical of Yemeni-Saudi relations. Editor Abdulaziz Sultan was called in for questioning.”
- We clarify that the journalist ( Jamal Ahmed Amer) wrote an article in which he criticized the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rulers without depending on documents, a matter condemned by the law and deemed an offense against others. Such irresponsible behaviour has been clarified directly in the previous paragraph and there is no necessity for repeating it. It is worthwhile to mention that this journalist was not detained for more than two days for legally interrogation, and his case was then referred to judiciary.
In another part the report mentions that “In May 2000, Hisham Ba Sharahil, the editor of al-Ayyam, was charged with ‘ insulting the use of force and terrorism’ and ‘ publishing false information’ for publishing an interview with Islamist militant Abu Hamza al- Masri. He also was charged with ‘insulting public institutions’ for publishing an article critical of the Director of Aden Security.”
- Clarification of this point needs to be dealt with from two aspects. First of all there is a misunderstanding as one subject has been tackled as two different topics. It is in fact one subject because the reason for charging Ba Sharahil was that he had published the offense as stated by Abu al-Hamza who had through that assailed Aden’s security with publish insulting without depending on facts and realities. That had forced the security administration to file a lawsuit against he newspaper that is responsible for publishing such allegations.
One the other hand the one called Abu al-Hamza was among those who intentionally acted aggressively against security and safety of Yemen, whether by planning or perpetrating some acts of sabotage or crimes, or through material assistance or instigating sedition and call for carrying out terrorist acts and destabilizing security of the public. He did not stop at that but had publicly, and on many occasions, called for killing all foreigners in the Arab countries under pretext of their being as infidels, using the press in this regard. This makes all those cooperating or facilitating and serving his hostile criminal schemes accountable by law.
The report mentions that “In August 2000, Saif al-Hadhiri, the editor in chief of al-Shumu newspaper, was convicted of libel in connection with series of articles reporting high-level corruption in the ministries of electricity, agriculture, education and finance.”
- Judiciary has undertaken considering the case filed by the minister of education and his deputy, and the ministries of electricity, agriculture and finance have nothing to do with it. Judiciary issued a sentence that has been appealed and that is very normal question. He who had committed a mistake and affronted others without bringing evidence should not expect to get away with that without accountability for his irresponsible conduct. As for the journalist being exposed to kidnap, it is purely groundless.
The report mentions that “In May the PSO detained journalist Hassan al-Zaidi and held him incommunicado for 16 days in the detention centre under PSO headquarters in Sana’a as he belongs to al-Zaidi tribe in Ma’reb, which has been responsible for kidnapping of foreigners and other destabilising activity.”

- To make it clear we say that al-Zaidi was conniving with his tribe in kidnappings of foreigners. He had been carrying out dubious activities supporting his tribe in that direction. The other allegations are merely groundless claims.

The report also mentions that “In February 1999, the ministry of information closed al-Shoura newspaper affiliate of Islamist opposition party Union of Popular Forces as well as a new competing version of the same newspaper.”
- This point has been mentioned in former reports but the same allegation has been repeated several times as if the one who prepared the report refuses to be convinced with the previous responses. Substance of the those responses is that it was a surprise for information bodies that two newspapers are issued with the same name and sharing the same trend. That had caused a state of confusion. No doubt, one of them was the permitted one and legally issued, as for the other it had impersonated a newspaper still being published. The two newspapers complained against the other. Each had denied legitimacy of the other and judiciary decided to close both of the newspapers till the truth was revealed. Finally a legal decision was issued and decided the dispute.
The report says “In August 1999, journalist and lawyer Nabil al-Amoudi was brought before the Abyan preliminary court for writing an article critical of the government and the human rights situation in the country. The case remained pending at year’s end.”
- Mr Nabil al-Amoudi is not a journalist but a lawyer and he was not brought before court for any case pertaining to writing an article. This claim is untrue lock, stock and barrel.
- The report mentions that “In 1999, several independent and opposition party journalists formed a rival union, the committee for the defence of journalists.”
- We confirm that this committee was never formed on the ground but rather there were altercations in the press between the journalists and Yemeni journalists union and a few number of journalists against the union. Things had been settled and no committee rival to the union was formed afterwards.
The report has also said that “Customs officials confiscate foreign publications regarded as pornographic or objectionable because of religious or political contents.”
- As for foreign publications of political or religious content they none of them has been confiscated under any justification whatsoever. The report has not brought forward certain incidents to prove credibility of this assumption. Pornographic publications are legally banned. Judiciary is the authority that instructs confiscation and banning. Other bodies are merely vehicles for carrying out judiciary orders.
The report says “In April 2001 PSO officials in Taiz detained Faysal Said Frara’a, the director of a private cultural centre, for a day of questioning following his alleged receipt of banned books dealing with the opposition.”
- This is a groundless allegation and the PSO had not carried out any kind of detention of the said person on the mentioned charge.
The report says “In 2000, the owner of a Sana’a bookstore was arrested by the PSO for selling banned copies of an edition of the London-based Arabic magazine al-Magalah, which featured a cover story on President Saleh’s son Ahmed, the commander of the Republican Guard.”

- We would like to make it clear that the PSO had not carried out any action of this kind. This statement is untrue and further, no edition of the said magazine was banned.

-- Freedom of peaceful assembly and association
Under this point the report mentions that “The constitution provides for freedom of peaceful assembly; however, the government limited this right in practice. The government requires a permit for demonstrations, but it issues them routinely.”
- This phrase has been literally repeated in previous reports. We do repeat that the constitution does not limit organisation of peaceful assemblies. Organizing the holding of peaceful assemblies is not considered a limitation of practicing this right, which the constitution guarantees for the Yemeni citizen. This proves seriousness of he government in activating the role of these assemblies and it is a clear evidence that the government is interested in role of such assemblies in development in all fields. The report contradicts general allegations in the same paragraph, specifically on page 27 in that the ‘government held 19 opposition activists’ is a groundless allegation, as in a previous reply. The question of giving permits for demonstrations is no more than routinely measures aimed at organizing traffic or diverting traffic to other streets, or for intensifying security measures to ensure safety and property of the citizens in case riot acts erupted during the demonstrations.

-- Freedom of Religion
Under this point the report mentions “Official government policy does not prohibit or prescribe punishment for the possession of non-Islamic religious literature. However, there are unconfirmed reports that foreigners, on occasion, have been harassed by police for possessing such literature.”
- These allegations have been mentioned in the general form and unconfirmed statements and do not depend on certain incidents.

-- Freedom of movement within the country, foreign travel, emigration and repatriation

Under this paragraph the report mentions “The government places some limits on freedom of movement. In general the government does not obstruct domestic travel.”

- Refutation of this phrase is stated in the report itself and in the same line. We wonder what wisdom is behind this contradiction ? For after a general allegation, without being supported by a proof or probability, is mentioned, the report refutes its allegation. It would be better for compiler of the report to avoid falling in such apparent failure by omitting the paragraph (d), for it is irrelevant to reality. This has been made clear in the course of respnding to “General Allegations”. Regarding the refugees, there is no connection between them and title of this paragraph, therefore the title should be reconsidered under which the subject of refugees is listed. Yemen’s record in relation to refugees is well-known and its humanitarian stands towards refugee is a tangible fact felt up till our present days.
The report has also mentioned that “The law does not include provisions for granting refugee or asylee status in accordance with the provisions of the 1951 U.N. convention Relating to the Status of Refugee and its 1967 protocol.”
- This statement is not true because the article No. 46 of the Yemeni constitution stipulates that “repatriation of political asylees is prohibited”, and that means that the right of political asylum in the Yemeni republic is guaranteed according to the constitution and in adoption of the U.N. convention related to refugees conditions for the year 1951 which our country had endorsed on 18 January 1980. A proof of that is that Yemen had an is still receiving many refugees coming from Somalia, Eritrea and Ethiopia. The report in question has referred to that.

Section (3) Respect for Political Rights: The right of Citizens to Change Their Government

Under this section the report says “The constitution provides citizens with the right to change their government; however, there are significant limitations in practice. The government by law is accountable to the parliament; however, the parliament is not yet an effective counterweight to executive authority. Decision making and real political power still rest in the hands of the executive branch, particularly the president.”
- It has been previously replied on these two points in the course of the response to “General Allegations” and can be referred to.
The report mentions “In some governorates, tribal leaders exercise considerable discretion in the interpretation and enforcement of the law. Central government authority in these areas often is weak.”
- This is an allegation very far from logic and reality because interpretation and enforcement of law is entrusted with organisations defined by the constitution. It is not inconsistent that some individuals, at times, solve their problems outside courts in the limits permitted in valid laws an legislation of the republic and would not violate the general order and public manners. What is said about the government authority being weak in some areas is not true and has a clear confusion.
Another remark in the report says “The YSP claims that the government has yet to return the assets that it seized from the party during the 1994 civil war.”
- In the first place it must be clear that the phrase “civil war” is incorrect, as was previously clarified. Regarding the claim by the YSP demanding the return of its assets, it is an inaccurate statement. It is known by all that most of what was in possession of the party were private and public properties and the situation was rectified in 1994. The was then given special facilities to the public properties while the remainder part was returned to the actual owners and the state.
The report mentions “Many Akhdam are not permitted to participate in the political process, mainly due to their inability to obtain citizenship.”
- Response to this allegation also had been repeated in all previous reports. Those the report called Akhdam are Yemeni citizens enjoying the Yemeni citizenship and all rights and freedoms. They have the right to vote and candidacy according to texts of the constitution in articles ( 41,42, 25,24). They have actually voted in all elections and played a significant role in giving preponderance to some candidates on others. We wonder where from the report has derived this piece of mistaken information that the Akhdam do not have the Yemeni citizenship.

Section 4
“Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights”
Under this point, the report mentions that “ The Supreme National Committee for Human Rights (SNCHR), which was formed in 1997 and reported to the deputy prime minister who is also minister of foreign affairs, was dissolved in June, reconstituted, and then placed under the authority of the new minister of state for human rights.”
- The SNCHR, formed in 1997, was not dissolved but rather reconstituted pursuant to the republican decree No. 89 for 2001 under chairmanship of the prime minister, his deputy head of the presidency office and the state minister for human rights assumes the general secretariat of the committee. The SNCHR is composed of foreign minister, interior minister, justice minister, information minister, legal affairs minister, social affairs and labour minister, the attorney general and head of the central apparatus for political security as members.
Section 5 “ Discrimination based on race, sex, religion, disability, language, or social status”
Under this paragraph the report mentions “ Rape is prohibited by law; however, it is a widespread problem.”
- The saying that rape is a widespread problem is a statement having no evidence. They are rare incidents in a society whose population amounts to around (17, 071, 000) people. Those who commit rape crime are tried according to the law that prohibits that .
The report says “ The issue of violence against women became a topic of heated public debate in 2000 following the murder of two female students at Sana’a university’s medical school and extensive press reports documenting the authorities’ dismissive treatment of female students’ concerns and inadequate attention to their security.”
- The Yemeni society has not witnessed a crime such as that which happened at the medical school whose victims were two female students. When clues of the crime were discovered the competent authorities conducted measures of investigation and referred it to the prosecution that in turn filed the case to court. Following a public trial a just verdict was issued in the case. It is worth mentioning that Yemeni governmental or private press paid extensive and considerable interest in publishing details of the case and the trial. That interaction by official and party sides revealed the extent of concern in this case that is very new for our Yemeni society.
he report mentions that “ Women face significant restrictions on their role in society. The law, social system and Shari’a, as interpreted in the country, discriminate against women. “
- The law and constitution have not discriminated against women and abolished all disparities between man and woman. Article 41 of the constitution stipulated that all citizens are equal in rights and public duties and article 31 says ‘ women are full sisters of men’. The report mentioned the phrase in a general way and did not specify the sort of restrictions on their role in society. This allegation had been previously responded to in the course of reply to “ general allegations’.
The report has mentioned “ There are a number of recently formed NGO’s working for women’s advancement, including the social Association for Productive Families...”
- It should be clear that in addition the mentioned in the above paragraph, the state supports and encourage spread of woman training centers, especially with poor families. At present there is the national program for productive families formed in 1990 for training women and teach them technical skills in order to get job opportunities to overcome the difficult living conditions. At present there are 57 training centers for women in all governorates and the plan is to build more such centers.

Children
The report mentions that “ The government does not provide free medical care for children.”

- This is not true. The ministry of health organizes national campaigns for free immunization and vaccination against diseases, all Yemeni children in all governorates benefit from them. In addition, there are awareness campaigns conducted by the health ministry every now and then using various mass media. There are also maternity and child care centers in residential quarters as an experiment for opening centers for comprehensive social services. These centers offer services on reproductive health , in addition to free clinics for maternity and child care services. The centres also offer free legal consultations to women about their rights to social welfare. Such centres are at present working in Sana’a and Aden as a first step to establish them in all governorates of the republic. During the past two years, the government has founded a centre for offering care to street children> In cooperation with one of the non-governmental oganisations, work is under way on a new project for street children care to be implemented in 2002. This project is in cooperation wit the Arab Center for Childhood and Development. There are also under construction, six houses for orphans’ care in the governorates of Amran, Mahwit, Dhamar, Aden and the capital, funded by the Social Fund for Development and they are expected to be finished in 2002. A house for misdemeanant girls has been equipped and operated in Sana’a. Beside that there are six houses for juveniles care existing in a number of governorates.
The report says “ Child abuse is not prohibited by law, and it was a problem.”
- This claim is far from reality and logic because in case there is no text in the law in this regard, the Islamic Sharia’ is the reference and the text. Sharia’ prohibits causing damage or inflict abuse on human, whether young or adult. The government has recently approved a draft law on child rights prepared in dependence on the international agreement on child rights and international convention on child rights. The law contains many commitments and responsibilities, entrusted with various state departments, towards caring for child in health, educational and social fields in addition to providing for his needs of food. The law gives equality to both male and female children and prepares a suitable ground for more attention and care for childhood and for surmounting the existing difficulties. The project is now before the parliament to be endorsed soon.

Persons with Disabilities
Under this point the report mentions “ Persons with mental and physical disabilities face distinct social prejudices, as well as discrimination in education and employment.”
- This point has been previously clarified in the course of the reply on the ‘General Allegations’ but we add the following clarification: under encouragement and support of the state, a union for the disabled has been recently founded. The state has encouraged the establishment of many handicapped societies and put them on the list of support. Presently there are tens centres for the disabled and the blind. The state, in cooperation with the Social Fund for Development, is implementing two centres in Abyan and Seyoun. And also in cooperation with the Public Works project, the state is building four centres for the handicapped in the governorates of Hudeida, Taiz and al-Ghadha. For the first time the government started in 2002 the establishment of two, out of ten, centres for the deaf and mute in compliance with directives of the president of the republic. There are beside that a number of technical support projects aimed at rehabilitation and vocational training of the handicapped and also social rehabilitation in cooperation with a number of international organisations.

National/ Racial/ Ethnic Minorities
Under this point the report mentions that “ During March persons were reported killed and 11 wounded in tribal disputes between the al-Usaimant and Wadeah tribes in Amran governorate.”
- This issue was because of a tribal dispute between the two sides who were controlled and the case is now under study before the local authority in the governorate.
Also under the same paragraph the report mentions “ In May five persons were killed in a drive-by shooting in Sana’a. Witnesses said that the incident involved the Abu-Nashtun and al-Faqih tribes and was related to an incident between the two tribes that had occurred 10 years previously. “
- The issue is a tribal dispute between the two tribes and necessary measures were taken to control the two parties and referring the case to competent judicial authorities.
The report also says “ In October 6 tribesmen were killed and 16 injured during two days of tribal violence stemming from a land dispute in Hajja governorate. “
- The incident took place in the district of Kashr between Bani al-Dammi and Bani al-Za’akery. A campaign of 6 armed forces units was dispatched in a bid to solve the dispute and cease-fire could be reached between the two sides and the case was referred to the prosecution . The case is still under consideration by the prosecution.
The report has also mentioned that “ In May, the ongoing feud between the Marib-based al-Zaidi tribe and the Sana’a-based Sanhan tribe, a child was killed and two adults injured in Marib when security forces were despatched to rescue five kidnapped Sanhani children.”
- All necessary measures had been taken to seize the kidnappers and hand them over to competent authorities after rescuing the kidnapped safely without causing any incidents of killing or injury.