The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights

Worrying trends accompanying the Emergency Law include the non-existence of real supervision on the state of emergency in the country.
Furthermore, there is no effective parliamentary regulation on the reasons for the continuation of the situation, particularly as the President, who announces the state of emergency is, at the same time, the leader of the ruling National Democratic Party which enjoys a parliamentary majority.
EOHR has established over the last few years that the Emergency Law has been activated to dispel several basic rights and liberties.
It is not an exceptional procedure but rather it has become a ruling trend.
The most prominent violations, which occur under the umbrella of the Emergency Law, are as follows:

The Emergency Law has the power to restrict personal freedom to assemble, move, and reside.
It has wide powers of arrest, search and seizure without the safeguards of the criminal procedures law (Article 3 of the Emergency Law).
There can be no doubt that abuse of this power violates the rights and insurances that the Egyptian Constitution has confirmed in its article 41 concerning personal freedom, article 44 concerning the sanctity of citizens homes, article 50 concerning freedom of movement and residence, and article 54 concerning freedom of assembly.
Many violations to articles stated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Egypt had ratified, also occur.
The Emergency Law gives the State the power to form exceptional courts, which are the Partial State Security Court§ and the Higher State Security (Emergency) Court to look at crimes in violation of the rulings of the President or whoever is representing him (article 1.7 of the Emergency Law).
Military personnel may be incorporated in the body of these courts, which is a blatant violation of constitutional and international standards concerning the separation of powers, independence of the court, and immunity of judges (article 165-173 of the Constitution).
It is also a blatant violation of article 14 of the ICCPR. According to article 9 of the Emergency Law, the President can transfer cases in front of the normal courts to the Higher State Security Court (Emergency).
In this, there is a violation of article 40 of the constitution, which ensures the principle of 'equality between citizens' and the right of individuals to go to their normal judges as confirmed in article 68 of the Constitution.
Article 13 of the Emergency Law gives the President of the country the power to dismiss a case before being presented to court.
It also allows him to order the temporary release of any accused before being transferred to the State Security Court.
Article 12 bans the accused the right to appeal the verdicts of State Security Courts, which is considered a serious violation to the right of the accused to appeal court verdicts in front of higher courts as confirmed in article 14 of the ICCPR.
Article 12 of the Emergency Law also states that the State Security Courts' verdicts are not final until the President ratifies them.
This is an unexplainable interference in the work of the judiciary power and a violation of the principle of separation of powers and makes the implementation of judicial verdicts hostage to the will of the superceding power of the Emergency Law.
Since the declaration of the state of emergency, the President has the right to transfer to the martial court any crime stated in the penal code or any other law (article 6 of martial rulings code). This is a blatant violation to articles of the constitution, the ICCPR, and all international standards concerning the independence of the court, which confirms the right of the accused to be presented to their normal judges and the limitation of all forms of exceptional courts.

Springing from the Egyptian Government's insistence on the continuation of the state of emergency, regardless of criticisms, the Emergency Law is a tool for political ruling more than it is a tool to face real dangers threatening the Egyptian society as shown below:
1. The Emergency Law and other laws restricting civil and political liberties are used to hinder an effective participation in administering the country.
2. Activating the Emergency Law to face political opposition, who use a peaceful manner in their political work.
3. The Egyptian Government's justification for extending the state of emergency is mainly based on the necessity to fight terrorism.
EOHR has confirmed that no armed actions have been monitored since the Luxor Massacre in 1997.
Furthermore, the use of the events of 11 September to give an impression that terrorist attacks might extend to Egypt is not politically or legally justified.
By selecting justifications for continuing the state of emergency and in the absence of the necessary supervision of its implementation, we are left with its negative effects on the status and future of democracy and human rights in Egypt.