Bulletin Summary:
-
Journalist Haider Qandil appeared before the Supreme State Security Prosecution after 23 days of enforced disappearance. He was questioned about his religious beliefs and ordered into pretrial detention.
-
Former parliamentary candidate and teachers’ union activist Dr. Mohamed Zahran was arrested after calling for a meeting with teachers to discuss ways to implement court rulings issued in their favor. He was charged with joining a terrorist organization and remanded in pretrial detention.
-
The one-year prison sentence with hard labor imposed on activist Ahmed Douma was upheld on appeal.
-
The wife of prisoner of conscience Mohamed Adel complained that he was subjected to ill-treatment inside his place of detention during her visit.
Bulletin Items:
First. Investigations Marked by Serious Legal Deficiencies:
1. Investigation Following Three Weeks of Enforced Disappearance
Questioning Journalist Haider Qandil Over His Religious Beliefs
On 15 July, Mohamed Zein El Abdeen, a prosecutor at the Supreme State Security Prosecution, questioned journalist Haider Qandil in Case No. 5635 of 2026 (Supreme State Security). The investigation was based on his alleged adherence to the Shi’a school of Islam, and he was accused of leading a terrorist organization and promoting the objectives of a terrorist organization.
The questioning took place after Qandil reappeared following 23 days of enforced disappearance. During the investigation, the prosecution disregarded his statement that he had been forcibly disappeared after being arrested outside the headquarters of Al-Dostour newspaper.
This raises serious concerns regarding respect for the constitutional safeguards protecting personal liberty and freedom of belief. Subjecting an individual to criminal investigation on the basis of religious convictions presents a grave legal concern, as freedom of religion and belief, together with the religious and intellectual convictions associated with it, constitutes a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and should not, in itself, be criminalized or serve as grounds for deprivation of liberty.
Furthermore, any allegations of enforced disappearance require a prompt, independent, and effective investigation to establish the facts, ensure accountability, uphold the rule of law, and protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed under both the Egyptian Constitution and international human rights law.
Questioning Former Parliamentary Candidate Dr. Mohamed Zahran
On 15 July, Egyptian security forces arrested former parliamentary candidate Dr. Mohamed Zahran only hours after he published a Facebook post inviting teachers to attend a meeting to discuss mechanisms for implementing court judgments issued in favor of the Teachers’ Syndicate.
The following morning, 16 July, he was brought before the Supreme State Security Prosecution and investigated in Case No. 5773 of 2026 (Supreme State Security). He was charged with joining a terrorist organization and spreading false news and statements.
During the investigation, however, he was confronted with only two Facebook posts. The first concerned his call for a meeting of teachers to discuss legal mechanisms for enforcing final court judgments ordering the termination of judicial receivership over the Teachers’ Syndicate—a lawful trade union activity fully consistent with Egyptian law.
The second post consisted of commentary questioning the public’s preoccupation with football matches while issues of social injustice and economic hardship continued to affect large segments of society. The post contained no unlawful content and merely expressed a legitimate opinion and raised a lawful public question.
Second. Trials:
During the second half of July, approximately 2,130 defendants were tried in 55 criminal cases, the majority of which were State Security felony cases, before the terrorism circuits convened inside Badr Prison (the Badr Courts Complex). During the same period, blogger and prisoner of conscience Ahmed Douma was convicted on charges of publishing false news. Several of these proceedings exhibited serious procedural deficiencies and fell short of internationally recognized standards of a fair and impartial trial, including the following:
The Prosecution Read the Indictment Despite the Defendants’ Absence:
The trial of five defendants in Case No. 3539 of 2025 (Al-Saff Felony Case), publicly known as the “ISIS Al-Saff Case,” during the 27 July hearing, exposed a significant procedural irregularity concerning judicial coordination and verification of the prerequisites for commencing trial proceedings.
At that hearing, the Second Terrorism Circuit of the Cairo Criminal Court, presided over by Judge Wagdy Abdel Monem, with Judges Abdel Galil Muftah and Hossam El-Din Mostafa as panel members, adjourned the case until 9 August 2026 to ensure proper notification of the defendants and the attendance of prosecution witnesses.
During the session, however, the representative of the Supreme State Security Prosecution proceeded to read the indictment despite the defendants not being present before the court. The court interrupted the prosecution upon noticing this procedural defect.
The incident raises important questions regarding whether the case file had been adequately prepared for the scheduled hearing and whether the authorities had verified in advance that the defendants had been properly notified and that the necessary measures had been taken to secure their appearance before the court prior to initiating substantive trial proceedings.
Ahmed Douma’s Prison Sentence Upheld, Renewing Concerns Over Freedom of Expression
On 16 July, the New Cairo Misdemeanor Appeals Court upheld the one-year sentence of imprisonment with hard labor imposed on activist Ahmed Douma in Case No. 4894 of 2026 (Fifth Settlement Misdemeanor Court) on charges of publishing false news and statements.
As had occurred during the proceedings before the court of first instance, the appellate court did not hear the full oral pleadings of Douma’s defense team. Furthermore, defense counsel were unable to submit their complete written memoranda for the court’s consideration, as the court refused their request to reopen the pleadings and allow the defense to present its full arguments.
Third. Pre-trial Detention and its Violations:
Renewal of Detention of a “Minor” and a “Student” While Preventing Communication with Their Lawyers:”
On 19 July, Mohamed Refaat, a prosecutor at the Supreme State Security Prosecution, renewed the pretrial detention of the minor Reda Mohamed El-Mirghany for 15 days pending investigation in Case No. 663 of 2026 (Supreme State Security).
The detention renewal hearing was conducted remotely, with Reda participating from his place of detention at the Third Ismailia Police Station. The hearing lasted only a few minutes, during which the prosecutor muted the child’s audio connection, preventing him from speaking or communicating with his lawyer.
The Supreme State Security Prosecution has repeatedly renewed Reda’s detention since mid-February 2026 on charges of joining a terrorist organization and publishing false news and statements.
During the same session, the same prosecutor also renewed the pretrial detention of university student Marwan Mounir for 15 days in Case No. 4488 of 2026 (Supreme State Security) on the same charges. He was likewise denied the opportunity to communicate with his lawyer, and the prosecutor terminated the video connection with Abu Zaabal 2 Prison, where the student is being held, before any confidential communication with counsel could take place.
Fourth: Activities of the Judicial Authority (Negative or Positive):
A) The Judicial Council:
Supreme Judicial Council Reinstates Ban on Judicial Social Media Groups:
The Supreme Judicial Council decided to reinstate its previous decision to close judicial groups operating on social media applications and summoned all administrators of such groups to implement the decision.
In a statement, the Council said:
“With reference to the previous decision of the Supreme Judicial Council regarding the closure of judicial groups on social media applications, which aimed to preserve the dignity of the judiciary and regulate the exchange of information among members of judicial bodies and authorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Judicial Code of Conduct and its requirement to uphold the values and traditions of the judiciary and to refrain from circulating news or comments that may undermine the dignity and prestige of the judiciary or its members;
Whereas the Supreme Judicial Council is the sole authority competent to oversee matters relating to the judiciary and the Public Prosecution pursuant to the Constitution and the Judicial Authority Law;
And whereas it has been observed that certain publications containing false allegations and inaccurate information have been circulated, while bypassing the legitimate institutional channels for communicating with state authorities and institutions, thereby creating confusion and discord within the judicial community and beyond, in addition to undermining the dignity, respect, and mission of the judiciary;
And whereas such conduct is inconsistent with the duties of judicial office, established judicial values, and the Judicial Code of Conduct;
Therefore,
The Supreme Judicial Council has decided to reactivate its decision to close judicial electronic groups and to summon all administrators of such groups to implement this decision. The Secretary-General of the Supreme Judicial Council shall ensure its prompt implementation and report accordingly.”
B) Public Prosecution:
Digital Transformation of Public Prosecution Services and Enhancing Access to Justice:
The Public Prosecution’s announcement of new electronic services—including online access through its official website to inquire about criminal judgments registered against citizens, obtain certified copies of judgments, check the status of pending cases, and request copies of hearing minutes in criminal and family law cases through the Ana Vodafone application—represents a positive step in the digital transformation of Egypt’s justice system.
These services are expected to facilitate litigants’ access to judicial services, reduce the time and effort required to complete legal procedures, improve the efficiency of judicial administration, and enhance the quality of services provided to the public.
The success of these initiatives, however, will depend on ensuring robust information security and the protection of personal data, while providing effective technological mechanisms that enable all citizens to access these services easily. Achieving these objectives is essential to striking an appropriate balance between advancing digital justice and safeguarding the constitutional rights to privacy and access to justice.
C) Lawyers:
Bar Association Organizes Seminar on the New Criminal Procedure Law:
The announcement by the Egyptian Bar Association that it will organize an academic seminar to discuss the new Criminal Procedure Law No. 174 of 2025, with the participation of leading legal scholars—most notably Professor Gamil El-Sagheer, Professor of Criminal Law and former Dean of the Faculty of Law at Ain Shams University—constitutes an important step toward promoting legal dialogue on one of Egypt’s most significant recent procedural reforms.
The seminar provides an opportunity to examine the provisions of the new law and the mechanisms for its implementation, facilitating an exchange of perspectives between legal scholars and practitioners. Such discussions contribute to assessing the law’s newly introduced provisions and their impact on fair trial guarantees, the rights of the defense, and the overall efficiency of criminal proceedings.
These initiatives also underscore the important role of the Bar Association in promoting legal awareness and preparing legal professionals to keep pace with legislative developments, thereby supporting the proper application of the law and reinforcing the principles of justice and the rule of law.
Fifth. Prisons and Prisoners:
Allegations of Ill-Treatment in Places of Detention: The Duty to Investigate and Safeguard Detainees’ Rights:
The allegations published by the wife of prisoner of conscience Mohamed Adel, claiming that he was subjected to ill-treatment during her visit, followed by the Ministry of Interior’s denial of these allegations, underscore the importance of conducting a thorough and impartial examination of such claims, as they concern one of the fundamental rights of detainees—the right to humane treatment and respect for human dignity.
As a matter of principle, places of detention are subject to the rule of law. While the State is vested with the authority to enforce judicial decisions and sentences, it bears a corresponding obligation to ensure that no detainee is subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
At the same time, allegations concerning detention conditions must be examined through prompt, independent, and objective investigations to determine their accuracy. Such investigations are essential both to ensure accountability for any violations that may have occurred and to avoid reaching premature conclusions before the verification process is complete.
Respect for the rights of detainees, together with the existence of effective mechanisms for receiving and investigating complaints, remains one of the essential indicators of the rule of law and the effective administration of justice.
Continued Transfer of Detainees from Sharqia Governorate to Maximum-Security Prisons:
The continued transfer of detainees from Sharqia Governorate to maximum-security prisons located far from their place of residence raises legal and human rights concerns regarding its impact on the exercise of their fundamental rights, particularly the right to maintain contact with their families and the right to effective legal representation.
The designation of places of detention should not impose additional burdens on detainees or their families that hinder the exercise of rights guaranteed by law. Moreover, the distance between detainees and their families may significantly impede regular family visits and make it more difficult for lawyers to maintain effective communication with their clients and adequately prepare their defense, potentially affecting the fairness and efficiency of criminal proceedings.
The State’s obligation to ensure the humane treatment of detainees and to provide conditions that enable them to exercise their procedural rights remains a fundamental measure of respect for the rule of law. This requires striking an appropriate balance between the administrative management of detention facilities and the protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the law.
During the reporting period, security forces in Sharqia Governorate transferred 41 individuals held in pretrial detention in politically related cases to the maximum-security prisons of Port Said, Damanhur, and Minya, relocating them far from their home governorate.