Bahrain regime acquittal of killers is an execution of policy of impunity

Al-Wefaq: Acquittal of killers is an execution of policy of impunity
26 February, 2013 – Al-Wefaq

The High Criminal Court in Bahrain has acquitted two policemen on Tuesday, accused of killing the martyr Fadhil Matrook, aged 32. Matrook was killed on 15th February 2011, during the funeral of the revolution’s first martyr, Ali Mushaima, when the regime forces opened fire directly on the peaceful citizens injuring a number of them and killing one. The killer had a clear intention to kill considering the close range of the firing at the victim, al-Wefaq said.

Al-Wefaq National Islamic Society stated that the court’s series of acquittals of murderers of innocent citizens reveals the reality of the regime which has long tried to hide its crimes behind cosmetic and sham committees. The Bahraini court’s acquittal of troops who have committed murder gives OK to commit more crimes against citizens and entrenches the regime’s policy of impunity, al-Wefaq added.

This acquittal comes days after the acquittal of troops involved in the murder of two other martyrs; this reflects the judicial authority’s indulgence with criminals and killers. Al-Wefaq further stated; since these crimes were confirmed by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) and international human rights NGOs, these acquittals reveal the regime’s problematic situation, however, cannot be a runaway from its responsibility of these crimes committed by its forces.

The acquittals reflect that the crimes and murders committed by the regime come in a systematic framework, considering the increase in the number of martyrs and victims as a result of the regime’s ongoing escalation in violence, and considering the Public Prosecution’s and courts’ decisions to acquit killers and protect them with impunity.

Al-Wefaq stressed that the acquittals only condemn the regime since its troops are accused of the killing and it is responsible for their acts especially that the killing came within its systematic policy, and they raise questions on the judiciary’s seriousness in holding criminals to account.