Coinciding with the start of the implementation of the new Criminal Procedures Law on October 1, Egyptian detainees inside prisons launched what they called the “October Beginning Movement,” to demand their release, and announced their intention to refrain from receiving their food rations on October 7, 8 and 9, in protest against their continued detention.
The movement comes at a time when eight human rights organizations have called on the authorities to implement the maximum limits for pretrial detention stipulated in the new law, while human rights lawyer Khaled Ali warned that failure to release defendants who have exceeded these limits could lead to a wave of hunger strikes inside prisons.
The new law stipulates that pretrial detention is a temporary precautionary measure for investigation, not a punishment. It sets the maximum period for pretrial detention at 18 months.
The new law stipulates that pretrial detention is a temporary precautionary measure for investigation, not a punishment. It sets the maximum period of pretrial detention at 18 months (one and a half years), except in crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment, where the Court of Appeals or the Court of Cassation may extend the detention. According to a statement published by the Juwar Foundation for Human Rights, detainees are demanding the implementation of the new law's provisions, particularly those related to the maximum period of pretrial detention, to ensure the release of those who have exceeded the legal limits and to end the suffering of male and female detainees who have spent years in detention.
In a statement announcing the launch of the movement, the detainees said: “To all the patient male and female detainees awaiting God’s relief, in the name of God we announce (the October movement, the beginning), so that it may be our launch, God willing, which will end with us obtaining freedom, and so that we do not remain hostages losing every day what remains of our freedom, our lives, our souls, and our humanity.”
According to the statement, the movement comes “as an expression of a unified position aimed at placing the issue of detainees at the top of the priorities, and working to release them all, with a focus on the female detainees and prisoners who have been in prisons for years.”
The statement called on detainees in various prisons to participate in the first steps of the movement, by refusing to receive food and appointments on October 7, 8 and 9.
In the first reaction to the movement, the Badr Court witnessed protests by prisoners during a session to renew their pretrial detention, according to lawyers, during which they chanted slogans demanding their release, and proceeded to smash surveillance cameras inside the detention cages.
According to the same account, the protests began after a guard refused to grant a request from a 60-year-old detainee to see his detained wife, who was in another hall.
The situation angered a number of detainees, who began banging violently on the three detention cages, breaking the door of one of them.
The events resulted in one young man suffering a broken leg and being taken to the hospital, while the elderly detainee fainted, before the security forces allowed him to see his wife. The detainees were withdrawn and returned to their cells following the protests.
Eight human rights organizations, in a joint statement, demanded the application of the maximum limits for pretrial detention stipulated in the new Code of Criminal Procedure.
Furthermore, eight human rights organizations, in a joint statement, called for the application of the maximum limits for pretrial detention stipulated in the new Code of Criminal Procedure. They emphasized that the protection of rights and freedoms is not achieved merely by issuing legal texts, but rather by implementing them in accordance with constitutional principles and international human rights standards. They stressed that freedom is the fundamental principle, and that its restriction is an exception that may only be resorted to when genuinely necessary, by a reasoned decision, in a manner proportionate to its purpose, for a specific period, and under effective judicial oversight.
She stressed that the maximum limits set by law represent ceilings that cannot be exceeded, and are not time limits that should be exhausted automatically.
She called for narrowing the scope of resorting to pretrial detention as an exceptional measure, not a prior punishment, demanding that every decision to detain or renew detention be based on specific individual reasons, while giving priority to legal alternatives to detention.
It also called for an end to what is known as the “rotation policy,” whereby a detainee is re-listedin a new case with the same charges in order to circumvent the legal limits of pretrial detention.
The demands included guaranteeing the right to a defense, enabling lawyers to access case files and attend investigations, ensuring the right of defendants to confront the evidence against them, establishing clear limits on the powers of law enforcement officers and holding those who overstep their bounds accountable, and preventing impunity for torture, unlawful detention, and enforced disappearance. The organizations also called for travel bans to be imposed only when necessary, by a reasoned decision, and for a specific period, with a guarantee of the right to a swift appeal.
She stressed the importance of subjecting the authorities of prosecution and investigation to independent judicial oversight, ensuring the integrity of procedures, and not correcting invalid procedures with retroactive effect, as well as protecting privacy, and not resorting to surveillance or recording except by a reasoned judicial order that is specific in scope and duration.
The organizations concluded their statement by emphasizing that the success of the new law is measured by the extent to which human dignity and freedom are preserved in practice, not by the quality of its texts alone, and announced their intention to monitor the application of the law and document any violations of the guarantees it contains.Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Khaled Ali, in a message he published on his Facebook page under the title “A Message to Whom It May Concern”, questioned whether the Egyptian authorities would respect the provisions of pretrial detention contained in the new Criminal Procedures Law No. 174 of 2025.
He said that the Ministry of Justice and the relevant judicial bodies are paying attention to remote litigation procedures and electronic announcements, but no one has spoken about releasing the defendants whose pretrial detention has exceeded the maximum limits set by the new law.
He added that adhering to these time limits and releasing all those who exceed them would give the law genuine societal acceptance and enhance its legitimacy by enforcing its provisions on the ground, even in light of the criticisms directed at some of its articles.
Conversely, he warned against ignoring these limits and continuing to detain defendants who have exceeded the legal time limits, considering that this could have serious repercussions.
He explained that the first of these repercussions is the loss of the law’s legitimacy among the families of the accused and those concerned with constitutional rights and freedoms in Egypt, noting that the lack of respect for the articles regulating pretrial detention would undermine the moral legitimacy of the law.
The second repercussions relate to the reactions of the accused and their families, who followed the stages of preparing the law and bet that its provisions would contribute to solving the crisis of long-term pretrial detention.
Ali said that failure to implement these texts in a way that guarantees the protection of constitutional rights and freedoms could lead to angry reactions, warning of the possibility of hunger strikes expanding within prisons.He added, “I see its beginnings already in some prisons, and in the questions, fears, and anxieties of families about the future.” He pointed out that he had opposed the law, not only because of some of its provisions, but also because of the philosophy behind the drafting of most of its articles, emphasizing that he had hoped for its repeal.
He considered that the worst-case scenario is not only the refusal to repeal the law or postpone its implementation, but also the implementation of some of its articles and the disregard for the articles that protect the freedoms of citizens and the constitutional rights of the accused.He explained that his message does not stem from opposition to the law or warning of potential consequences, but rather from demanding the rule of law and the enforcement of all its provisions on everyone, and the commitment of state authorities to its provisions.
He stressed that the strength of laws does not depend on what they contain in terms of texts, but is also related to the extent to which state institutions respect them and apply them in a consistent and fair manner.
He added that the practical value of the texts that define the periods of pretrial detention will depend on how they are applied to current and future cases, and the extent to which effective mechanisms are available to prevent the continued restriction of the accused’s freedom after the expiry of the legal periods.
He concluded by emphasizing that the selective application of the law, if it occurs, will not only weaken its provisions, but will also undermine the principle upon which the legal system is supposed to be based, which is that everyone is subject to the law, individuals and authorities alike, and that the rule of law does not only mean that citizens are bound by its provisions, but also that all state authorities are bound by it and enforce its provisions in full.
Tags:
asiawest
