(2)
Thirteen days after the third judgment was circulated to the
Applicants, and nine days after it was published, the IPT emailed
the Applicants to inform them that the finding relating to the
breach of the time limits for retention “in fact related to Amnesty
International Ltd…and not the Egyptian Initiative for Personal
Rights”.
(3)
The IPT did not explain how such a fundamental error had occurred
or why it was not detected until sometime after the judgment was
handed down. Instead, the Tribunal merely stated (some three
weeks later) that the “mistaken attribution occurred after all
judicial consideration had taken place and related only to the
production of the determination for hand down”.141
285.
It is submitted that this error matters. The IPT was, at this stage,
carrying out an assessment concerning the proportionality of the
interference with the applicants’ rights. Plainly the identity of Amnesty
International was relevant to that assessment. There are very serious
concerns surrounding the obtaining, and storage, of the communications of
a respected human rights organisation. Put simply: how did the IPT carry
out the necessary balancing exercise when it thought it was dealing with a
different NGO carrying out a different function?
VI.
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10
286.
The role played by human rights organisations – such as the Applicants –
is similar to the watchdog role of the press. (Társaság a Szabadságjogokért
v. Hungary, App. no. 37374/05, 14 April 2009, §27; Riolo v. Italy, App. no.
42211/07, 17 July 2008, §63; Vides Aizsardzības Klubs v. Latvia, App. no.
57829/00, 27 May 2004, §42).
141
Letter from the Tribunal dated 1 July 2015. Reply Annex No. 18A.
111