Egyptian Center Highlights Objections of the “Towards a Fair Criminal Procedure Law” Campaign During Parliamentary Discussion: A Legislation that Undermines Justice

As discussions unfold in Parliament, the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR) strongly denounces the Egyptian Parliament’s approval of several provisions in the new draft Criminal Procedure Law during the General Assembly session on Sunday, January 29, 2024. This approval came after the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report was discussed.

The Center reiterates the concerns raised by the “Towards a Fair Criminal Procedure Law” campaign, which consists of a diverse coalition of professional unions, human rights organizations, and legal experts. They have expressed serious reservations about the problematic nature of the proposed law.

Earlier, Parliament had approved the law in principle after holding 12 sessions discussing the legislation, highlighting the Council’s intention to involve as many MPs as possible in the debate.

The Egyptian Center underscores its objections, shared by various stakeholders, including professional associations, human rights groups, legal experts, and the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur. These objections are made in the hope that they will be taken seriously, with the aim of preserving the integrity of the justice system.

The discussion surrounding the draft law occurred without meaningful societal dialogue that includes all relevant parties, raising concerns over its alignment with constitutional and international human rights standards. The law signals a regression in ensuring fair trial protections and safeguarding the rights of the accused and detainees, thereby threatening the foundation of justice and the Egyptian legal system. As such, the Center demands the immediate withdrawal of the law.

The Center questions the claims of government officials and parliamentarians that the law is in line with the outcomes of the 2023 “National Dialogue,” pointing out that it introduces amendments that grant security agencies more power, curtail defense rights, and reinforce pretrial detention as a punitive rather than precautionary measure. Rather than advancing criminal justice reform and ensuring individuals’ rights, the draft law seems to increase security control while reducing guarantees of a fair trial.

The Center continues to emphasize the main objections from the “For a Fair Criminal Procedure Law” campaign, which include:

1. Failure to meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people: The country needs a new law that aligns with constitutional amendments and modern criminal justice practices. However, the draft law offers little new, with more than 70% of its provisions merely reiterating the current law.

2. Neglecting the rights of the accused and their defense: Despite advocating for modern practices like remote trials, the law does not sufficiently incorporate these methods to improve the rights of the accused and their defense, such as using recording and documentation techniques in investigations and trials, and providing alternatives to pretrial detention.

3. Exemption for offenders of public funds: The law allows individuals accused of public fund violations to reach a settlement at any stage of the criminal process, potentially fostering corruption and undermining the deterrent effect of the law.

4. Expansion of judicial police powers: The law grants judicial police officers extensive powers, including the authority to investigate cases, which goes beyond the jurisdiction of the public prosecution and judiciary.

5. Expansion of security authorities’ powers: The law’s delegation of powers is not restricted to senior officials, but extends to all judicial police officers, including those without legal expertise.

6. Restricting the accused’s right to defense: The law allows the prosecution to prevent the accused and their defense team from accessing case files, and limits their ability to cross-examine certain witnesses in cases that may impact the verdict.

7. Expansion of the public prosecution’s powers: The draft law increases the public prosecution’s powers in investigations, allowing it to file criminal charges in all offenses without an investigation, contrary to the principles of justice.

8. Limiting judicial powers: The law extends the public prosecution’s powers at the expense of judicial authority, threatening judicial independence and increasing executive interference in criminal proceedings.

9. Excessive surveillance powers: The law grants the public prosecution broad powers to monitor communications and record private conversations, infringing upon citizens’ privacy and the sanctity of their personal lives.

10. Failure to regulate electronic surveillance: The draft law allows for the seizure of assets and travel bans before a conviction is made, undermining the principle of the presumption of innocence.

11. Blocking detainee communication with families: The law permits the public prosecution to prevent detainees from contacting their families or other detainees, violating basic human rights.

12. Prejudging the accused: The draft law lacks adequate protections for the rights of the accused before a conviction, including restrictions on travel and asset seizure without defined time limits.

13. Exploitation of prison labor: The law permits detainees to be employed without respecting minimum wage laws, amounting to exploitation.

14. Withholding testimonies from the accused: The law allows the accused and their defense to be denied the opportunity to hear prosecution witnesses, a significant rollback in fair trial guarantees.

15. Abolishing compensation for pretrial detainees: The law imposes severe restrictions on the right to compensation for individuals detained without trial, effectively nullifying their ability to seek redress.

16. Remote trials: The law does not adequately address the issues surrounding remote trials, which hinder the accused’s ability to communicate with their lawyers and negatively impact their right to a fair trial.

In response to these concerns, the Center recommends:

Opening the draft law to community dialogue, including all concerned parties, to ensure it meets societal needs and respects individual rights.

Revising the provisions on pretrial detention to ensure it is used only as an exceptional measure.

Strengthening defense rights and witness summons, ensuring direct interaction between the accused, their defense, and the court.

Removing provisions that offer immunity to those responsible for violations.

Ensuring financial and moral compensation for those harmed by arbitrary detention.

The Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights calls on all active societal forces to reject the draft law in its current form and work toward drafting a law that promotes justice and protects individual rights, emphasizing the importance of opening the door for community dialogue before making any amendments that threaten fundamental freedoms.