Second: A draft law amending some provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
promulgated by Decree Law No. 46 of 2002 (prepared in light of the draft law
submitted by the House of Representatives)
1. NIHR referred its advisory opinion on the draft law amending some provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure promulgated by Decree Law No. 46 of 2002, which includes four articles. The
first articles includes substituting a number of articles. The second article provides for adding a
paragraph to Article 142 and adding two articles. The third article provides for repealing a paragraph
of Article 147. The fourth article is an executive article.
2. H
owever, according to NIHR mandate, the advisory opinion is restricted to the legal provisions
which it deemed to have an impact on or prejudice human rights and fundamental freedoms, in
particular, Articles 57, 63, 64, 77, 84 (Clause 1), 86 (Clause 1, 141, 149, 294 (Clause 1), 297, 142 (bis) of
the draft law. With respect to formal remarks (related to language and legal wording) and substantive
remarks (related to purport), NIHR referred to the opinion memorandum of the government and
the memorandum of the Legislation and Legal Opinion Commission attached to the draft law.
3. Article 53 provides that: “A judicial summary arrest officer shall immediately hear the statements
of the accused following his arrest. If he fails to provide evidence of his acquittal, he shall send
him to the Public Prosecution within 12 hours. The Public Prosecution shall interrogate him
within 12 hours and shall then order his imprisonment or release”. In the statement of its views,
NIHR indicated that the draft law reduces the period prescribed for the arrest officers and the
public prosecution in the event of arresting or interrogating the accused to twelve hours instead
of twenty-four hours, as originally set forth in the Law, which is a commended approach that is
consistent with the second and third paragraphs of Article No. (9) of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Kingdom of Bahrain acceded under Law No. 56 of 2006,
which provides for the need to inform the accused “expeditiously” of the charge attributed to him
and that he shall be entitled to trial within a “reasonable time” or should be released. However, the
reduction of this period to twelve hours is probably not consistent with the purpose of listening to
the accused by the law enforcement officers or the public prosecutor during the interrogation, as
it is a short time that is not commensurate with the procedures to be followed by those bodies to
achieve justice.
4. The Human Rights Committee, entrusted with the interpretation of the provisions of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, indicates the meaning of the term “expeditiously”2.
It identifies that this period should not be no more than forty-eight hours, which is in line with the
course adopted in the original law that the accused should enjoy the prescribed guarantees during
the period of his arrest.
5. Therefore, NIHR believes that the period prescribed by the provision as stated in the original law,
which is forty-eight hours, is consistent with the international instruments relevant to human rights
as well as the requirements of justice.
Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee during its consideration of periodic reports of States Parties to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including (Uzbekistan)
2
Document No. (CCPR/CO/83/UZB), (Ukraine): Document No. (CCPR/C/UKR/CO/6), (Moldova) Document No. (CCPR/C/MDA/CO/2).
17