Pretrial Detention List

During the past seven years, the Egyptian judicial authorities, and in particular the Supreme State Security Prosecution, have used pretrial detention as a tool to harass opponents of the current political system at the hands of the security services, regardless of their orientation.

This pattern of violation is no longer restricted to political activists, journalists, or those interested in political or public work, but it has become the main tool for intimidating the wider public in an attempt to promote self-censorship among citizens and prevent them from expressing their opinions on any subject, specially if it contradicts the official narratives of the government, especially in the realms of social media, which has become the only outlet for citizens to express their opinions in light of the crackdown on all outlets in fear of an inevitable imprisonment without being convicted or even any legal evidence of violating the laws.

This pattern of violations is a clear breach of the purpose of pretrial detention, which is stipulated in the Criminal Code of Procedure as well as the regulations governing its use and its alternatives. Instead of legitimately applying precautionary detention as a precautionary measure to stand guard of investigations or the course of the trial, especially in cases where it is feared that the defendant may use leverage or authority to influence the investigation or trial, such as tampering with evidence, it is used as a punitive measure.

The Criminal Procedure Code also gave the judicial authorities several alternatives to pretrial detention, which are stipulated in Article 201 of the law; such as obliging the defendant not to leave his home or domicile, or to present himself to the police headquarters at specific times, or to be prohibited from going to specific places. Whereas, in the event that the defendant violates any of these alternatives, the same law allows the judicial authorities to re-imprison him. Those alternatives established by the law also indicate the legislator’s keenness to use pretrial detention in a restrictive manner, when there is fear of the defendant’s serious ability to tamper with the progress of investigations or trial.

However, as we mentioned earlier, the judicial and security devices have sidestepped pretrial detention to use it for purposes irrelevant to the reasons behind its legalization. Furthermore, the authorities circumvent the law which does not permit the continued pretrial detention for more than two years pending the same case, as then the judicial authorities are required to release defendants immediately. To counter that, the authorities re-investigated defendants directly after their release and imprison them again pending a new case. So that while the decision is being issued to release the defendants in cases where their imprisonment had exceeded two years and the procedures are being finalized, the security forces take them to unknown areas without disclosing any official information, only for them to appear later before the State Security Prosecution pending a new case with the same accusations from which he was released in the older case, which is commonly known now as “recycling”.

The majority of those arrested for expressing their opinions are accused of the same charges, even those who are rotated into new cases, are re-accused with the same chargess from which they were released; joining a terrorist group, publishing false news and statements, and using an account on one of the social media accounts with the aim of committing another crime, without any evidence of those accusations being provided. The State Security Prosecution relies only on investigations carried out by the National Security Agency to prove such allegations.

The use of pre-trial detention in this repressive form has significantly intensified during the past seven years to the extent of stirring several factions to address it as one of the most important violations facing freedom of expression in Egypt, which prompted the National Council for Human Rights to issue a statement^[1] in mid-April 2017 in which it called on the Egyptian authorities “to find a solution to this problem in particular, as a person may be remanded in custody, and after a long period of imprisonment, and then he is found out to be innocent, and thus he has been punished for a crime he did not commit.”

In addition to that, 31 countries issued a statement^[2] on the sidelines of the 46th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2021, calling on the Egyptian government to “stop the excessive use of pretrial detention,” as it noted the expansion of pretrial detention procedures, and the inclusion of detainees in new cases on similar charges after the expiration of the legal period for their pretrial detention.

It can be said that the national strategy for human rights initiated by the Egyptian government under the auspices of President Abdel Fattah ElSisi means that the government recognizes that there is a real problem with regard to pretrial detention, which calls for reinforcing the guarantees pertaining to the regulations of pretrial detention and the periods stipulated for it in national laws.

AFTE welcomes any step, even a simple one, in order to stop the systematic violations carried out by the Egyptian authorities against citizens for expressing their opinions, a right guaranteed to them by the Egyptian Constitution and all the international treaties that Egypt has ratified. It monitors the executive measures taken by the government. In order to achieve what it committed itself to in this strategy, which has not shown any signs so far, despite the ease of many procedures to implement many of those decisions, especially the immediate release of thousands of citizens, including journalists, academics, creatives, and citizens from all walks of life whose only crime was expressing their opinions on social media.

AFTE, which provides legal support to victims of freedom of expression, especially those who are subjected to pretrial detention, presents to the competent authorities, whether those implementing the national strategy for human rights or the judicial authorities, a list of citizens who are undergoing pretrial detention as a means of punishment for expressing their opinions, as an example for thousands of citizens who are subjected to this violation on a regular basis, hoping for their release or using any alternatives to pretrial detention stipulated in the law.