Reports
Cairo: February 2003

 Introduction       Part one        Part two       Part three         Part four

The Effect of the Emergency Law on the Human Rights Situation

 In Egypt: 1992-2002

Introduction

This report is entitled, “The Effect of the Emergency Law on the Human Rights Situation in Egypt: 1992-2002” and it is the first to be issued by the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) for the year 2003.  The report was issued following the decision of the People’s Assembly on 23 February 2003 to renew the state of emergency in Egypt for another three-year period (until 2006). The extension is the thirteenth renewal of the proclamation of emergency since the 1981 assassination of former President Sadat. 

The state of emergency was not due to expire until May 2003.  However, faced with growing opposition to the law, the government prematurely rushed the extension through the People’s Assembly. The government utilized the current international and regional context as justifications for renewing the state of emergency, in particular, the need to protect citizens from terrorism. EOHR is of the view that such pretexts are untenable for two reasons.  First, it is precisely during time of international unrest that a country needs to protect the values of democracy.  Public rights and freedoms of citizens should be respected, civic participation encouraged and international cooperation fostered in order to effectively deal with political, economic and cultural challenges.  Second, Egypt has not witnessed any terrorist acts since 1997, so there is little justification for exceptional measures to protect citizens from terrorism. 

Indeed, EOHR is of the view that protecting the rights and freedoms of Egyptian citizens is a primary guarantee for a peaceful society without terrorism.  Evidence suggests that the use of exceptional emergency laws only encourages extremism.

Since its establishment in 1985, EOHR has continuously highlighted the danger of the Emergency Law (No 162 of 1958), and its corrosive effect on human rights in Egypt.  The Emergency Law has been shown to not only threaten basic rights and freedoms, but also to play a significant role in hindering the peaceful democratization process in society.  EOHR has highlighted in its reports the role of the Emergency Law in usurping the role of the legislature and the judiciary and in undermining national constitutional rights and international human rights agreements to which Egypt is a party.  Additionally, the authorities have continuously abused the powers of the Emergency Law, particularly when dealing with political prisoners.  In response, EOHR issued this report to examine and document the human rights situation in Egypt during the state of emergency. The focus of the report is on violations by the Egyptian government during the state of emergency, rather than by other third parties.

This report is divided into five main sections.  They are the following:

v     The Emergency Law and Human Rights in Egypt;

v     The Emergency Law and its Impact on Fair Trial Standards;

v     The Emergency Law and its Impact on Freedoms of Opinion, Expression and Belief;

v     The Emergency Law and its Impact on the Rights to Assembly and Peaceful Demonstration;

v     The Impact of the State of Emergency on Managing Public Affairs.

 The report contains a number of recommendations.  Additionally, there is a table of statistics annexed to the report detailing violations for the period 1992-2002. The table includes the number of civilian cases that have been transferred to military court jurisdiction, and the number of journalists and civil activists sent before State Security Courts for expressing their opinions.

The Emergency Law and Human Rights

 The current Emergency Law is the last in a string of martial laws introduced into Egypt by the British Occupation in the early twentieth century.  Despite the intended exceptional nature of emergency law, Egypt has been subject to martial law (more or less consistently) for more than 60 years from 1914 to 2003. 

Whilst international law provides for some derogation of human rights principles during times of public emergency, such suspension is strictly prescribed. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Article 4) provides that States Parties may take measures derogating from their obligations “to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.” This implicitly requires satisfying the two-prong test of necessity and proportionality with respect to any restrictions placed on international obligations. Moreover, some rights cannot be derogated from even in times of emergency.
Non-derogable rights under the ICCPR include the right to life (Article 6), the

prohibition against torture (Article 7), the right not to be held in slavery/servitude (Article 8), the right not to be imprisoned for breaching a contract (Article 11), the right not to be found guilty of a criminal offence on account of any action (or lack thereof) that does not constitute a crime (either nationally or internationally) (Article 15), the right to recognition before the law (Article 16) and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 18).