by Huda Badri
The national independent fact-finding committee for the events and circumstances of 30 June claimed that it is the “most neutral” towards interpreting events, and does not prejudge events that are still under scrutiny and discussion.
The committee stated in a Wednesday statement that the report published by Human Rights Watch (HRW) only covers the Rabaa and Nahda dispersals as well as the Republican Guard violence, while it has omitted commentary on facts that are equally important, specifically citing the attacks on Christians and their churches and property, violence in universities, and the attacks on police stations.
However, the HRW did research the attacks on churches, Christians and police stations by sympathisers of the Muslim Brotherhood. The reports quoted journalists reporting on the incidents and interviewed military and state officials that witnessed these attacks.
After the dispersal, “crowds of men attacked at least 42 churches, burning or damaging 37, as well as dozens of other Christian religious institutions,” according to HRW.
The statement of the fact-finding committee continued that the committee will take the report into consideration because it contains the vision of “certain protesters” at the events, which did not cooperate with the committee when they were requested to.
The statement pointed out that the committee will take into account the name of the report, “All According to Plan: The Rabaa Massacre and Mass Killings of Protesters in Egypt” as well as the alleged gaps in the report which the statement points out is due to “lack of information”.
The commission renewed its call to local and international human rights organisations and also to the injured and the families of the victims to cooperate with the committee and provide them with all information and evidence that they have, ensuring them of the confidentiality of their statements.
The statement pointed out the keenness of the committee to maintain the confidentiality of information that it is provided with does not contradict with its need for transparency.