Since the House of Representatives began deliberating the draft Criminal Procedure Law, we have deemed it our national and constitutional duty to participate in this historic legislative process. Our engagement stems from our civic responsibility to contribute to public life and voice opinions that advance the national interest, as well as from our professional obligation as lawyers, academics, and human rights experts specializing in criminal justice and the rule of law.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, we convened to analyze and review the draft law in depth\u2014examining its provisions, identifying shortcomings, and proposing alternative formulations where necessary. Our review was guided by:<\/p>\n
1. The Constitution, which stands as the supreme legal framework guaranteeing rights, freedoms, and obligations.<\/p>\n
\n2. Established judicial principles developed by the Supreme Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation, which serve as authoritative references for legislators when drafting laws.<\/p>\n
\n3. The National Human Rights Strategy, launched by the Egyptian government to promote all human rights\u2014civil, political, economic, social, and cultural\u2014as enshrined in the Constitution, domestic legislation, and international treaties to which Egypt is a party.<\/p>\n
\n
Our deliberations resulted in a comprehensive policy paper outlining our vision for a fair and balanced Criminal Procedure Law. We submitted this paper\u2014containing constructive proposals for redrafting several provisions\u2014to the relevant state authorities: the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Cabinet. Our approach sought to ensure a careful equilibrium between safeguarding individual rights and freedoms within the criminal justice system, and maintaining public order and the rights of others.<\/p>\n
Despite these efforts, we were deeply disappointed that our proposals were disregarded. The House of Representatives approved the draft law as presented by the government and referred it to the President for ratification, notwithstanding its numerous flaws\u2014ranging from poor legislative drafting to apparent inconsistencies with constitutional provisions. These concerns have been widely echoed by distinguished scholars of criminal law, judges, practicing lawyers, and legal researchers recognized for their expertise.<\/p>\n
We were encouraged, however, when the President objected to certain provisions and referred the law back to Parliament for reconsideration. This development prompted us to urge the House of Representatives to use this opportunity not only to address the President\u2019s specific objections but also to undertake a comprehensive review of the entire draft, especially since its referral restored full legislative authority to the House.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the House\u2019s subsequent handling of the draft fell short of constitutional intent. By confining its review solely to the articles objected to by the President and declining to revisit other interrelated provisions, Parliament acted contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, which does not restrict its authority to reconsider any part of a bill once returned by the President.<\/p>\n
The final report of the special parliamentary committee\u2014approved in the general session\u2014introduced amendments that represented a clear regression from the progressive principles initially included in the draft. These changes undermined the right to defense and weakened fundamental safeguards of individual liberty.<\/p>\n
Below we set out our principal objections to certain amended provisions adopted by Parliament following the President\u2019s comments:<\/p>\n
\nFirst Article (6) Effective Date<\/p>\n
The original draft provided that the law would come into force on the day following its publication. The revised version postponed its entry into effect to October 1 following the date of publication, purportedly in response to the President\u2019s objections. This reasoning is inaccurate.<\/p>\n
The President\u2019s concerns related solely to a limited number of newly introduced provisions\u2014such as Article (232), which establishes telephone notification centers under the Ministry of Justice\u2014requiring logistical preparation prior to implementation. However, other provisions, including those reforming pretrial detention periods and introducing new safeguards concerning travel bans and related appeals, could have taken immediate effect. Postponing the law\u2019s enforcement deprives detainees of timely legal relief and weakens the new procedural guarantees that were intended to protect individual rights.<\/p>\n
\nSecond Article (105) Interrogation Without Counsel<\/p>\n
The original draft prohibited questioning or confronting a defendant without the presence of legal counsel, in line with Article (54) of the Constitution. The amended version, however, inserted a paragraph allowing the prosecutor to proceed with questioning if the defense lawyer failed to appear \u201cwhere delay would be prejudicial.\u201d<\/p>\n
Although the House subsequently narrowed this exception to cases where the defendant\u2019s life is at risk and only after requesting a court-appointed lawyer, it neglected to amend Article (64)\u2014which allows judicial officers delegated by the prosecution to interrogate suspects in urgent cases\u2014without expressly requiring the presence or appointment of counsel. This inconsistency reflects a hasty and fragmented approach to legislative revision, undermining the coherence of the draft and its compliance with constitutional safeguards.<\/p>\n
\nThird: Article (112) Custodial \u201cPlacement\u201d Prior to Interrogation<\/p>\n
The amended article authorizes the placement of a defendant in a correctional or detention facility \u201cuntil interrogation in the presence of counsel.\u201d While the committee justified this revision by citing the President\u2019s call for constitutional consistency with Article (54), the new text effectively introduces a new form of pretrial detention\u2014a vaguely defined \u201cplacement order.\u201d<\/p>\n
This provision opens the door for investigative authorities to detain individuals indefinitely under the pretext that interrogation cannot proceed without counsel, without establishing objective criteria for such a determination. As the time spent in \u201cplacement\u201d would not count toward the maximum limits of pretrial detention, this mechanism risks legitimizing prolonged deprivation of liberty without interrogation, in direct violation of constitutional guarantees of personal freedom.<\/p>\n
\nThe flaws identified above are not merely technical errors but reflect a broader failure in legislative policy affecting one of the Constitution\u2019s most essential complementary laws. Rather than strengthening procedural safeguards, the latest amendments have diluted and diminished them\u2014representing a significant setback for justice and human rights.<\/p>\n
We therefore categorically reject these amendments and call upon the President of the Republic to withhold promulgation of the law and refer it to the Senate for further review. We further urge that the bill be resubmitted to the House of Representatives in the next legislative term for comprehensive reconsideration\u2014free from political haste and within a deliberative framework that ensures the law\u2019s full consistency with the Constitution, both in letter and spirit. Only then can this law serve its intended purpose: to enhance respect for human rights and guarantee a criminal justice system that is both swift and fair.<\/p>\n
\nSignatories<\/p>\n
The Popular Socialist Alliance Party<\/p>\n
The Karama Party<\/p>\n
The Bread and Freedom Party<\/p>\n
The Egyptian Communist Party<\/p>\n
Workers\u2019 Secretariat of the Conservative Party<\/p>\n
Helwan Bar Association<\/p>\n
Arab Center for Law and Society Studies<\/p>\n
Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR)<\/p>\n
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR)<\/p>\n
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)<\/p>\n
Egyptian Center for Women\u2019s Rights<\/p>\n
Al-Haq Foundation for Freedom of Opinion, Expression, and Human Rights<\/p>\n
The New Woman Foundation<\/p>\n
Tibyan for Rights and Freedoms<\/p>\n
Mizan Initiative for Law<\/p>\n
Themis for Rule of Law<\/p>\n
Hurriya Law Office \u2013 Hala Douma & Partners<\/p>\n
Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms (ECRF)<\/p>\n
The Egyptian Human Rights Forum<\/p>\n
The Egyptian Front for Human Rights<\/p>\n
EgyptWide for Human Rights<\/p>\n
Regional Center for Rights and Freedoms<\/p>\n
DEFENSE \u2013 Khaled Ali Law Firm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Since the House of Representatives began deliberating the draft Criminal Procedure Law, we have deemed it our national and constitutional duty to participate in this historic legislative process. Our engagement stems from our civic responsibility to contribute to public life and voice opinions that advance the national interest, as well as from our professional obligation …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":808749,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[562],"tags":[],"coauthors":[936],"class_list":["post-808782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n