The review discusses Egypt’s Draft Criminal Procedure Code, which threatens to perpetuate police impunity for human rights violations, restricts fair trial rights, and undermines judicial integrity. Key issues include inadequate amendments to pre-trial detention laws, the expansion of prosecutorial powers, and insufficient protections against enforced disappearances. The proposed changes signal a continuation of unjust practices in Egypt’s legal system and fail to align with international human rights obligations.
This review critically examines Egypt’s proposed new Draft Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), a 95-page document disclosed on several pro-government platforms in August 2024. It highlights several concerning provisions that, if enacted, would perpetuate the existing impunity for severe human rights infractions perpetrated by state officials, thereby violating Egypt’s commitments under international human rights law. The draft essentially maintains the existing CPC’s problematic articles, particularly those that empower public prosecutors alone to initiate investigations into law enforcement misconduct, effectively blocking citizens and victims from seeking direct redress through the courts. The draft CPC also modifies regulations concerning pre-trial detention, reducing maximum detention periods. However, the set durations still do not comply with international standards and remain susceptible to abuse, as the amendments neglect to curtail the misuse of pre-trial detention for political reasons. Moreover, the procedure for renewing these detention periods lacks transparency, as it has been documented that judicial reviews are often superficial and inadequate. Significantly, the draft includes provisions that aim to expand the use of videoconferencing for court hearings. Such practices have previously compromised the due process rights of detainees by denying them physical presence in court, which is essential for ensuring legal representation and for judges to adequately assess legal rights and conditions of detention. Numerous sections of the draft CPC also threaten to undermine the fairness of trials. Prosecutors would be granted expanded rights to restrict defense lawyer participation and access to documentation, thereby eroding the principle of equality before the law. Furthermore, judges and prosecutors would share overlapping powers, contravening the requisite separation of judicial and prosecutorial functions, raising further concerns regarding defendants’ rights. Finally, the draft fails to provide a definition for enforced disappearance, a significant omission given the widespread nature of such violations in Egypt.
The context for this review is the Egyptian government’s proposal for a new Criminal Procedure Code aimed ostensibly at reforming the legal framework governing criminal procedure. However, past experiences indicate that such reforms often reinforce existing oppressive mechanisms, particularly in terms of how law enforcement authorities operate without sufficient checks on their power. This current draft seeks to amend key sections of the existing CPC, yet criticism arises from various local and international human rights organizations, which argue that it could further entrench systemic issues of impunity and arbitrary detention that have been persistent in Egypt since 2013.
The proposed amendments to Egypt’s Criminal Procedure Code present serious concerns as they would likely cement the prevailing impunity enjoyed by law enforcement officials and exacerbate arbitrary detention. The critical provisions that undermine the right to a fair trial, the expansive powers granted to prosecutors, and the failure to implement anti-enforced disappearance measures reflect a troubling trajectory for Egypt’s criminal justice system. It is imperative that any legal reforms align with international human rights commitments to ensure justice, transparency, and accountability. In conclusion, it is crucial that stakeholders, including legal professionals, civil society, and international observers, engage with these developments rigorously to advocate for a legal framework that upholds human rights standards and guarantees access to justice for all individuals.
Original Source: www.hrw.org
