VZCZCXRO1846
PP RUEHPA RUEHTRO
DE RUEHNK #0041/01 0191318
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 191318Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY NOUAKCHOTT
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9029
INFO RUEHZK/ECOWAS COLLECTIVE
RUCNMGH/MAGHREB COLLECTIVE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NOUAKCHOTT 000041 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/18/2020 
TAGS: PHUM PREL PGOV MR
SUBJECT: MAURITANIAN SUPREME COURT ANNULS JUDGMENT AGAINST 
JOURNALIST BUT KEEPS HIM IN PRISON 
 
REF: A. 09 NOUAKCHOTT 549 
     ¶B. 09 NOUAKCHOTT 823 
     ¶C. 10 NOUAKCHOTT 14 
 
Classified By: Charge Dennis Hankins for reasons 1.4 (b and d) 
 
¶1.  (C)  Summary:  On January 14, the Mauritanian Supreme 
Court annulled Taqadoumy editor Hanevy Ould Dehah's sentence, 
but stated that he should continue to be detained pending 
retrial.  Following this decision, Dehah's lawyers and 
Mauritanian National Bar Association President Ahmed Salem 
Ould Bouhoubeini denounced the Supreme Court for violating 
elementary penal procedure.  According to them, the Supreme 
Court deliberated before the deadline given to lawyers to 
submit their arguments.  Moreover, the decision was made in 
the absence of Dehah's lawyer, which is contrary to 
Mauritanian practice.  Despite the annulment of his trial, 
Dehah remains in jail and there is no indication authorities 
intend to liberate him.  No date has been set for a future 
trial, but it is rumored that the prosecution plans to 
request a stiffer sentence of at least five years 
imprisonment.  No official explanation has been provided 
justifying Dehah's arbitrary detention since the end of his 
six month sentence on December 24.  The Supreme Court's 
decision, rather than providing judicial clarity, further 
undermines the Government's image in ensuring rule of law. 
End summary. 
 
¶2.  (C)   On January 14, the Supreme Court overturned a 
decision made on November 23 by the Nouakchott Appeals Court 
confirming Dehah's August 19 sentence to six months in prison 
for creating a space that allows individuals to express 
opinions contrary to Islam and common decency (Ref A), and 
stated that Dehah had to be re-tried.  Lawyers had appealed 
Dehah's sentence on the basis that there are no existing laws 
regulating internet publications and that the Mauritanian 
penal code states that no act should be considered a crime if 
there is no law against it.  As of today, the court has not 
set a date for the new trial and Dehah remains in jail. 
 
¶3.  (C)  The President of the Mauritanian Bar Association, 
Ahmed Salem Ould Bouhoubeini, explained to PolOff on January 
19 that the usual procedure entails that, after lawyers are 
informed in writing of the sentence, they are given one month 
to submit their appeal arguments to the Supreme Court. 
According to the law, lawyers are allowed to be present when 
the Supreme Court meets to make a decision.  Bouhoubeini 
stressed that the Supreme Court had made its decision before 
the January 24 deadline given to lawyers to present their 
arguments.  It had deliberated without taking in 
consideration the lawyers' arguments and without the lawyers 
being present, which he saw as a flagrant violation of proper 
procedure.  Bouhoubeini told PolOff that the Supreme Court 
has put itself in a rather interesting legal conundrum as 
following the annulment of the trial and sentence, there was 
no reason for Dehah to remain in jail.  The usual procedure 
would be to liberate Dehah until the trial or for the 
authorities to re-arrest him and place him in preventive 
detention, for which they needed to issue an arrest warrant. 
 
 
¶4.  (C)  On January 19, Human Rights Commissioner Mohamed 
Lemine Ould Dedde and Human Rights Commission Director Cheikh 
Tourad Ould Mohamed requested a meeting with PolOff.  A 
defensive Dedde demanded to be informed of the contents of 
the 2009 Human Rights Report draft and wanted to know what 
PolOff had written on the Dehah case.  When PolOff reviewed 
her understanding of the Dehah case facts and invited him to 
provide insight, Dedde snapped he was nobody to comment on 
the Supreme Court's decision.  Mohamed responded he knew that 
all laws and procedures had been respected but that the 
government had failed to communicate that properly and that 
the opposition had exploited the case to make the government 
look bad.  PolOff suggested that by providing an official 
explanation, the government could participate in the 
conversation and respond to the accusations if it felt they 
were unfounded.  Dedde did not have anything to add and ended 
the meeting after inquiring about other aspects of the Human 
Rights Report and blaming the lack of progress in the 
trafficking and slavery fronts on insufficient resources and 
cultural reasons.  An aggressive Dedde told PolOff that 
Mauritania did not have anything to prove to anybody, 
including the United States.  Following the meeting, Human 
Rights Commission Director Mohamed intimated that he thought 
the government had done a bad communications job and that he 
would encourage the authorities to publish an official 
response. 
 
¶5.  (C)  Taqadoumy journalist Djibril Diallo contacted PolOff 
on January 14 to tell her the prosecution intended to request 
a 3-5 year imprisonment sentence for Dehah in the new trial. 
 
NOUAKCHOTT 00000041  002 OF 002 
 
 
In addition to condemnation of the Supreme Court's decision 
by the Bar Association, Mauritanian media and civil society 
have also reacted negatively.  Newspaper Le Caleme published 
a giant photo of Dehah with the title "We are all Hanevy's 
The editorial presented Dehah as a martyr and a defender of 
democracy and freedom who is paying a high price for opposing 
the August 6, 2008 coup d'etat.  It warned readers that, 
given the arbitrary tendencies of the regime, "anybody could 
be detained, accused, judged, condemned, re-judged and 
re-condemned" at the government's will.  The Mauritanian 
Journalist Union said the Supreme Court's role should have 
been to denounce Dehah's arbitrary detention instead of 
continuing to damage the justice system's image by stating 
that he should be re-tried and kept in jail. 
 
¶6.  (C)  Comment:  Ambassador Boulware raised Dehah's case 
with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of 
Justice (Ref B and C) emphasizing that the particulars of the 
Dedah case raised concerns about the Mauritanian governments 
respect for rule of law.  The Minister of Justice told 
Ambassador that Dehah was kept in jail after the end of his 
sentence because both his lawyers and the prosecutor had made 
an appeal to the Supreme Court and that he could not be 
released until a decision was made (Ref B).  He also said 
that there were other accusations pending against Dehah.  Bar 
Association President Bouhoubeini stated that according to 
correct procedure, Dehah should have been released after the 
end of his sentence while awaiting a decision from the 
Supreme Court.  If other charges were pending against him, he 
needed to be released and re-arrested  Local analysts do not 
believe the Supreme Court acted independently in its decision 
and that the  Mauritanian Government is intent to detain 
Dehah despite the damage that detention is doing to it 
domestically and internationally.  End comment. 
 
HANKINS