The United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva adopted, on 2 July, the final report of the Universal Periodic Review of Egypt’s human rights record, after the Egyptian government submitted its official response and its observations on the recommendations it received during the review session held last January.
The Egyptian government had delivered its official memorandum last June, in which it responded to the recommendations submitted, emphasising what it described as “the government’s achievements in a number of human rights files”. The government deemed a large number of the recommendations “already implemented”, and informed the Council that it accepted a large proportion of the recommendations, while excluding and rejecting those that contain clear demands for concrete and measurable steps before the next review convenes in four years’ time. The rejection covered recommendations related to legislative amendments, the ratification of international human rights conventions, specific institutional reforms, or the release of detainees.
The periodic review session held last January saw 137 states submit more than 370 recommendations to improve the human rights situation in Egypt. The recommendations addressed a wide range of issues, among them: torture, enforced disappearance, the recycling of pretrial detainees, detention for political reasons, restrictions on press freedom and human rights activity, violations affecting women and girls, laws restricting freedom of association and assembly, as well as declining social spending and continued impunity for crimes attributed to state authorities.
The final report merged similar recommendations, bringing the total number adopted to 343 recommendations. According to the memorandum submitted by the Egyptian government, it fully accepted 265 recommendations (77%), partially supported 16 recommendations (5%), and used the formula “noted” in response to 62 recommendations (18%). In diplomatic language, this expression is a formula of indirect rejection, used to evade any commitment to implementation.
According to a statement issued by the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), the Egyptian government this time refrained from explicitly using the word “rejection”, as it had done on the three previous occasions, and replaced it with the diplomatic expression “noted”, which in effect indicates that those recommendations are not accepted and will not be adhered to.
Violence against women: a government defence
During the session on the adoption of the final report of the Universal Periodic Review, the Egyptian government used the phrase “already implemented” to comment on 43 recommendations, among them calls to issue a comprehensive law combating violence against women, to criminalise domestic violence including marital rape, and to criminalise corporal punishment of children. The government also affirmed that it had guaranteed the independence of the National Council for Human Rights and granted it the power to inspect places of detention, and pointed to the repeal of laws discriminating against women and girls, the restriction of the death penalty to extremely serious crimes, and the release of pretrial detainees whose detention had exceeded two years. But many human rights organisations consider that these statements do not reflect reality in any way.
Speaking to “Zawia3”, Nevine Ebeid, chair of the board of trustees of the New Woman Foundation, says: “However much the Egyptian government tries to deny the prevalence of violence against women, the facts on the ground have become more eloquent than any statements. What we are witnessing today is not limited to an increase in crimes; it includes an escalation in their savagery, reaching the point of torture before killing.”
Ebeid cites several shocking examples, among them the killing of a wife with a gas cylinder, and of another with water mixed with a caustic substance, up to crimes of torture and killing, as in the case of the young woman Aya Adel in Jordan. She says: “We are no longer facing only crimes of violence, but cases of torture and killing in the street, merely because the victim is a woman, and that is an indicator that cannot be denied.”
Ebeid links this denial to what she described as a recurring pattern in the state’s handling of issues of violence, saying: “After the January revolution, the state denied the mass sexual assaults and the virginity tests, and described them as campaigns to tarnish the country. Today it repeats the same approach, by denying the crisis of violence against women in order to protect its image abroad, even if the price is the suffering of thousands of women.”
On the legal side, Ebeid considers that the state lacks a clear vision for passing a unified law combating violence against women, since this requires a comprehensive restructuring of the legislative system and purging the laws of serious loopholes, such as Article 17 of the Penal Code, which allows the penalty to be reduced in grave crimes, and Article 60, which is used to justify violence under the pretext of a “legitimate right”.
She affirms that the state shows no political or administrative readiness to deal seriously with these issues, and treats them as marginal files compared with other priorities. She points out that the personal status law itself has stalled for political and social reasons, even with regard to non-Muslim citizens.
She concludes: “The absence of legislation is not merely a technical or legal matter; it is a direct reflection of the nature of the political system, which turns a blind eye to violence against women and does not place their issues among its priorities. The state does not see in this violence a national crisis requiring radical reform.”
The Edraak Foundation for Development and Equality had documented 1,195 crimes of violence against women and girls in Egypt during 2024, according to the annual report issued by the Observatory of Crimes of Violence against Women and Girls.
The report explained that 540 of these crimes were committed by the victims’ families or one of their members, which reflects the wide scope of domestic violence. Killings topped the types of violence committed, with 363 killings recorded in a single year, among them: 261 crimes resulting from domestic violence, committed by the husband or partner (current or former) or a family member; and 67 killings committed by people from outside the family circle. As for the means of killing, stabbing was the most common at 23.1%, followed by strangulation at 19%, then beating to death at 15.4%.
Commenting, Samar El-Husseiny, executive director of the Egyptian Human Rights Forum, says that the government’s narrative in the final report of the comprehensive review on combating violence against women ignores a fundamental flaw in the legal structure. She explains, speaking to Zawia3: “Despite the measures the government claims, there is a basic problem in the definition of rape in Egyptian law, as there is still no explicit criminalisation of marital rape, and to this day feminist movements are waging a long legal and social battle to have it adopted.”
She adds that the most dangerous aspect of the matter is the government’s categorical refusal to issue a unified law combating violence against women, which leads to these issues being dealt with through separate, scattered articles of multiple laws, an approach that weakens the effectiveness of confronting violence at both the legislative and the executive levels.
El-Husseiny continues: “Despite the marked rise in rates of domestic violence, harassment and sexual violations in Egypt, the state still refuses to acknowledge the existence of a structural crisis requiring comprehensive legislative intervention.” She warns of the reality of legislative fragility: for example, the article criminalising harassment is not linked to any mechanisms for protecting witnesses or women who report; there are no systematic training programmes to qualify staff to receive complaints of sexual violence; and the system for dealing with survivors lacks gender sensitivity and basic safeguards.
El-Husseiny concludes by affirming: “Calling for a unified law is neither a radical demand nor a human rights luxury; it is a natural and self-evident demand that feminist organisations have been raising for years. But the state’s handling of the file shows that it is merely a propaganda tool aimed abroad, not a domestic issue requiring radical reform.”
In this context, it is worth noting that the task force of feminist organisations, in cooperation with MP Nashwa El-Deeb, submitted a draft unified law combating violence against women to the Egyptian parliament in March 2022. The proposal was signed by 60 MPs and contains 53 articles, among them explicit provisions on domestic violence.
Although nearly three years have passed since the draft law was submitted, it has not yet been discussed, even as the end of the legislative term and the parliamentary elections approach.
Wide-ranging recommendations
During the session to adopt the final report of the Universal Periodic Review, the Egyptian government defended its position on applying the death penalty, affirming that it is carried out only for “the most serious crimes”. But this justification met sharp criticism from human rights organisations, foremost among them the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, which considered that the huge number of international recommendations on the death penalty reflects growing concern over the enormous expansion in the issuing of these sentences in recent years.
The Universal Periodic Review session saw no fewer than 29 international recommendations addressed to Egypt calling for a reduction in the number of crimes punishable by death, and for a moratorium on carrying out this penalty in preparation for its abolition and for accession to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Egyptian Initiative pointed out that some of these recommendations came from African states such as Mozambique and Sierra Leone, which undermines the “cultural” argument the Egyptian government uses to justify keeping the penalty in force. Similar recommendations were also made by states from various continents.
Samar El-Husseiny, executive director of the Egyptian Human Rights Forum, says that the government’s claim that it applies the death penalty only for “the most serious crimes” does not reflect reality. She explains that “Egypt is still among the countries in the world that issue and carry out the most death sentences, including in cases of a political nature, and these sentences are often issued en masse, which raises wide doubts about the fairness of the trials and the guarantees of defence, especially given the restrictions imposed on the rights of the accused.”
El-Husseiny points out that the state, which in the past sometimes hinted at an intention to review the penalty or restrict its use, has this year undergone a dangerous shift in its official discourse, towards an explicit and unconditional embrace of applying the death penalty, without any intention to review or restrict it.
Earlier, the Egyptian Front for Human Rights recorded that the judicial and executive authorities continued to issue and carry out death sentences during 2024, despite mounting local and international calls to halt their use. The following figures showed a comparison between 2023 and 2024 of the death sentences issued by criminal courts.
In a report, the human rights organisation recorded the issuing of at least 380 sentences in 2024, compared with 348 sentences in 2023, and recorded the execution of at least 13 people in 2024, compared with 8 executions in 2023. It also recorded the final sentences upheld by the Court of Cassation, with 35 sentences upheld in 2024, compared with 27 sentences in 2023. According to the human rights report, these figures point to an upward trend in the use of the penalty, despite the clarity of international human rights messages on the need to reduce it in preparation for its abolition.
The Egyptian Front for Human Rights report also pointed out that the death penalty in Egypt is not limited to the most serious crimes, as the government claims, but is applied to a wide range of crimes, contrary to international trends calling for it to be confined to the most serious crimes only.
The report noted that many defendants in cases that could result in death sentences had been subjected to violations of their right to a fair trial, which constitutes a clear breach of the basic guarantees set out in international treaties and charters, especially in cases affecting the right to life.
No torture and no detention?
In responding to the international recommendations submitted during the session to adopt the final report of the Universal Periodic Review, the Egyptian government adopted a defensive discourse affirming, in its words, the state’s full commitment to protecting human rights.
The Egyptian government claimed, during the Universal Periodic Review session, that it does not detain anyone because of their political opinions, and that all detainees are tried in accordance with fair legal procedures, stressing that the Anti-Terrorism Law is not used against journalists or human rights defenders.
The government also denied the existence of cases of torture inside places of detention, affirming that there are competent oversight bodies that monitor compliance with the law, foremost among them the National Council for Human Rights, which the government claimed enjoys “full independence” and has powers to inspect places of detention without the need for prior permission.
The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights had submitted five separate reports to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism before the session was held, including an individual report that gave an overview of the deterioration of the human rights situation since the previous review session in 2019, as well as joint reports in which the Initiative took part with other organisations, the first of which addressed systematic violations within the criminal justice system, such as torture, enforced disappearance, unfair trials and poor detention conditions.
The second covered the rights of human rights defenders and the misuse of terrorism laws to punish them, the third dealt with the crisis of the rights of women and girls in Egypt, while the fourth was devoted to monitoring violations of digital freedoms and freedom of expression and the media. The Egyptian Initiative also issued a commentary on the government’s report submitted to the Universal Periodic Review, entitled “The Parallel Reality“.
In its reports, the Initiative documented mounting restrictions on civil and political rights, whether through legislation or security and administrative practices. It recorded the continued application of a legal system that restricts freedoms, such as the Protest Law, which has turned the right to peaceful protest into a practice that is effectively prohibited, and the Anti-Terrorism and Cybercrime laws, which are used to criminalise freedom of expression and to pursue opponents, journalists and activists.
The report also pointed to the expanding use of pretrial detention as a punitive tool, and the use of what is known as “recycling” (that is, detaining defendants again in new cases while they are in pretrial detention) to ensure that their detention continues outside the framework of the law.
In this context, Basma Mostafa, programme director at the Law and Democracy Support Foundation, says, speaking to Zawia3: “The Egyptian authorities’ claim that the country is free of political prisoners, and that the terrorism law is not used against journalists and human rights defenders, completely contradicts the reality documented on the ground.”
Mostafa affirms that what the foundation regularly documents reveals a systematic pattern of arbitrary arrests, prolonged pretrial detention and the recycling of cases, particularly with regard to journalists, human rights defenders and people with independent opinions.
She explains that many of them are detained on the basis of politicised judicial decisions and on vague charges such as: “spreading false news” and “joining a terrorist group”, which, in her words, are used as recurring tools to suppress freedom of expression and are often built on security investigations that lack the minimum guarantees of a fair trial.
Mostafa points to a number of prominent detainees who represent examples of these violations, among them: journalist Mohamed Oxygen, photojournalist Hamdy El-Zaeem, lawyer Hoda Abdel Moneim,
in addition to dozens of other independent voices who tried to express their opinions or practise their profession peacefully.
Mostafa adds: “The Egyptian government’s rejection of 62 recommendations during the Universal Periodic Review session, particularly those concerning the release of political detainees, an end to trials over opinion and the repeal of repressive laws, reveals a clear absence of political will for reform. It even shows the state’s effort to turn United Nations mechanisms into a mere cosmetic facade, without any real commitment to human rights.”
Mostafa warns that the scope of violations is widening to include Egyptians abroad, in what she described as “transnational repression”. She says that her foundation’s contribution to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism documented a growing pattern of practices targeting opponents and exiles abroad, including physical assault and threats, media smear campaigns, judicial prosecutions, and pressure on their families inside Egypt, including depriving them of official documents and consular services. She points out that in a number of cases the authorities resorted to the terrorism law to place opponents abroad on terrorism lists, in an attempt to silence them and pursue them even beyond the borders.
For his part, human rights lawyer Halim Heneish, a consultant at the Refugees Platform in Egypt, considers that the Egyptian government’s rejection of the Universal Periodic Review recommendations, its insistence that they are already implemented at home, and its continued denial that violations occur were not surprising, as this is a habitual position. What was striking this time, however, was the government’s acceptance of the recommendation on acceding to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which is regarded as a surprising development, especially since several human rights organisations have demanded this accession for years, among them the “Stop Enforced Disappearance” campaign, which since its founding has consistently called on the Egyptian state to ratify the convention.
Heneish adds in a statement to Zawia3: “Acceding to this convention would impose legal restrictions on practices linked to the crime of enforced disappearance, and would constitute, for the first time, an official recognition of this crime as defined in international law, which the Egyptian state previously refused to acknowledge.”
As for torture, it still persists, as several incidents of torture and death occurred inside police stations in past years without our witnessing any real accountability or the dismissal of any of the officers involved; on the contrary, there is constant cover-up by the Ministry of Interior and attempts to contain the cases without transparency or justice, Heneish says.
The human rights lawyer considers that despite the Egyptian state’s claim that there are no political detainees, daily reality starkly contradicts this. Over the past months, during my close follow-up of this file, at least 20 to 25 cases of arrest were recorded of people to whom nothing was attributed except expressing their opinions on social media about the deteriorating economic and living conditions in the country. He continues that the State Security Prosecution, the body competent to investigate cases of a political nature, still has new cases brought before it daily. As for the charges, they follow the same recurring pattern: “joining a banned group” and “spreading false news”, two vague charges used widely to restrict freedom of expression.
The truth is that the political crisis linked to detention over opinion cannot be solved through pardon committees or the review of prisoners’ files, since all these steps are nothing but cosmetic painkillers that do not touch the core of the problem. The real solution begins with changing the security and legislative policies that produce this reality, Heneish says.
He continues: “For example, since the Presidential Pardon Committee was reactivated, some lists have indeed come out, but the new arrests recorded during the same period are three times the number of those released. In fact, this committee, instead of being a serious gateway to releasing prisoners, has slowed the pace of the usual releases, as prosecution decisions to release detainees declined markedly, to be replaced by ‘pardon lists’, which themselves soon gradually disappeared.”
The human rights lawyer affirms: “We do not need only ‘committees’, nor even cosmetic changes to the laws. What we need is a real shift in policies, one that recognises that freedom of expression is not a crime, and that the political deadlock is not addressed through denial but through a serious will for reform.”
Last June, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights submitted an official complaint to the Attorney General, Counsellor Mohamed Shawky, in which it demanded an urgent investigation into the circumstances of the deaths of seven citizens inside Omraniya police station within a single year, a number the Initiative described as “appalling” and requiring immediate accountability.
The complaint included a demand to suspend the officers working at the station temporarily until the investigations are completed, and to refer those responsible to criminal trial should their involvement or their direct or indirect responsibility for these incidents be proven.
As of the publication of this report, no official response had been issued by the Public Prosecution or the Ministry of Interior regarding this complaint, which raises serious questions about the level of transparency and accountability in dealing with deaths inside places of detention.
The National Council for Human Rights under fire
During the session to adopt the final report of the Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council, the Egyptian government defended the performance of the National Council for Human Rights, stressing that it enjoys “full independence” that empowers it to carry out its tasks without interference, including the power to inspect places of detention without the need for prior permission, as well as its role in monitoring violations and ensuring respect for detainees’ rights.
But this narrative was met with wide scepticism from independent human rights organisations, which considered that the Council lacks real influence because of the political and institutional restrictions imposed on its work, the lack of transparency about the results of its visits, and its lack of real accountability tools vis-à-vis the security agencies or of executive mechanisms to ensure that its recommendations are acted upon.
In this context, Halim Heneish says that the National Council for Human Rights has become an “honorary council” lacking the necessary authority and powers, especially after the amendment introduced by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, which obliged the Council to obtain prior permission from the Ministry of Interior before carrying out its visits to places of detention. Heneish considers that this amendment has in effect undermined the Council’s independence and emptied it of its oversight function.
Heneish adds that the Council’s current composition is “the weakest since its founding”, noting that a number of its members have taken to promoting a discourse used for “whitewashing the regime’s reputation” instead of defending the rights of victims or demanding accountability for perpetrators of violations. He affirms that the Council has deviated from its natural role as an independent oversight body, to become part of the tools for polishing the authorities’ image and justifying their repressive policies, instead of pressing for an improvement in the human rights situation in the country.
The human rights criticism of the National Council for Human Rights is reinforced by what was issued by the accreditation committee of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), which recommended, in November 2024, downgrading the Council to category (B), after reviewing its performance and the extent of its compliance with the “Paris Principles” on the independence of national human rights institutions.
The committee pointed to serious concerns regarding the Council’s independence, effectiveness and transparency, criticising in particular the mechanism by which its members are appointed by the executive authority without transparency or societal participation, which undermines its independence and weakens its ability to work free from government interference. It should be noted that the downgrade to category (B) means that the National Council no longer has full rights of participation within the United Nations human rights bodies, which is regarded as an extremely significant negative indicator at the international level and confirms the decline of its standing as an independent national institution.
Criticism of the situation of refugees and migrants in Egypt
During the adoption of the final report of the comprehensive review, Egypt faced criticism over what migrant workers and members of their families are subjected to. Although Egypt has signed a number of relevant international conventions, including the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, the final report of the Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council included shortcomings in the protection of the rights of refugees and migrants, both in the legislative framework and in daily practice.
Several states expressed concern about the violations to which migrants and asylum seekers in Egypt are subjected, which include difficulties in obtaining legal documents and the absence of clear pathways to obtaining residency or work permits, in addition to most of them being engaged in the informal sector under harsh, exploitative conditions, without adequate legal or social protection. The report also pointed to discrimination in treatment between refugees and migrants of different nationalities, which aggravates the fragility of their situation.
In this context, Halim Heneish, a consultant at the Refugees Platform in Egypt, tells Zawia3: “What we document through our fieldwork at the organisation confirms that migrant workers in Egypt suffer real hardship, starting with the difficulties of obtaining residency papers or work permits, through to the serious challenges that prevent their integration into the formal labour market. Because of these obstacles, many migrant workers are forced to turn to work in the informal market, where they are more exposed to fraud, exploitation and violations without any legal protection.”
Heneish adds that this situation clearly contradicts the provisions of the international convention Egypt signed, which obliges the state to protect migrants and facilitate their access to work and basic services without discrimination. But he considers that the absence of political will, and the double standards between international discourse and domestic practice, make the ratification of conventions a mere cosmetic tool that does not translate into real commitments.
He concludes by saying: “What migrants in Egypt need is not only protection from violations, but also recognition as part of the economic and social fabric, and the provision of clear legal pathways that enable them to work and live in dignity.”
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique mechanism established by the United Nations General Assembly in March 2006 under resolution 60/251, and is regarded as one of the most prominent mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. The mechanism requires every UN member state to undergo a universal periodic review of its human rights record once every four and a half years, during which the state’s compliance with international standards is assessed and recommendations are made by other member states.
The review aims to urge states to promote and protect human rights and to make progress in implementing their international obligations, as well as to give each state the opportunity to assess its domestic performance in this field in a transparent and organised manner, while ensuring the participation of civil society organisations and international rapporteurs in analysing the human rights situation.
The fourth round of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism for Egypt before the United Nations Human Rights Council reveals a growing gap between official discourse and what non-governmental human rights organisations document. Reports by independent human rights organisations and the testimonies of victims show the persistence of structural violations of fundamental freedoms, foremost among them the right to life and physical integrity, freedom of expression, the right to association and the guarantees of a fair trial.
Editorial correction: The first version of the report stated that the Egyptian government fully accepted 264 recommendations; in fact, it fully accepted 265 recommendations, bringing the total of recommendations accepted in full or in part to 281 out of 343, according to the Egyptian government’s official memorandum to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/59/16/Add.1).
