Maat and the National Council for Human Rights call upon laying down Measures for Death Penalty.

01-11-2007

Maat Center for Juridical and Constitutional Studies, coordinator of The Egyptian Alliance to Challenge Death Penalty, cooperating with The National Council for Human Rights held a round table entitled "Death Penalty Measures in the Light of the International Protection of Human Rights" on Sunday 21st, October, 2007, inside the National Council. It was participated by a lot of law professors, experts, and judges.

  The table opened with Justice Mr. Aadel Qura's speech around the necessity to put dominant measures to ratify Death Penalty, and to put the articles which stated death penalty under discussion. He also added that this table is not intended to cancel this punishment completely from Egyptian laws and legislations, but its aim is to put guarantees for this punishment.

In his opining speech Mr. Ayman Oqeel, coordinator of the Egyptian Alliance to Challenge Death Penalty, talk about requirements motivated to cancel death penalty and that this is not a defense for criminals, but it is a prevention of treating a crime with another hideous one. He added that the human history shows the falseness of the calls which stated that death penalty can create a society without crimes. He also gave some examples asserted this punishment's cruelty, hideousness and futileness. He added that this punishment could be replaced by another one less severity and more humanity.

The speech of Dr. Emaad El Feqee, professor of Criminal Law, tackled all view- points supporting or refusing the canceling, illustrated the pretexts of the punishment's supporters and objectors, and discussed some articles in the Egyptian laws which included death penalty and illustrated its unconstitutionality.

However, speech of Dr. Khairy Al KAbbash, professor of Criminal Law and head of Court of Appeal, was around the reality of  legal measures regarding death penalty ,which guarantee justice in its ratification and execution as these measures can be classified into three kinds of measures,

Firstly: measures necessary when ratifying death penalty.

Secondly: measures necessary when issuing the death sentence.

Thirdly: measures necessary during the procedures of executing death penalty.

Then the discussion was opened for the attendances, the discussion was around measures dominated the punishment, guarantees through which justice of punishments can be granted for the accused and the victim. Attendances also discussed the ability of activating these guarantees and applying it, they tackled some articles related to the punishment and the ability of its canceling, amending or replacing the punishment in them with another less severity one.

Participants agreed upon the guarantee of the necessity of regarding the opinion of the Mufti ( interpreter of Islamic Law) in death sentences delivered to him, and that his opinion shall be a must and obligatory one, they also agreed upon the necessity of representing the case before Court of Cassation, and that it has the right to review the case.

At the end of the interpositions attendances make some recommendations which were divided into two sections,

First section: revising articles of death penalty in Penal Law, Challenging Drugs Law, Military Courts Law, and Weapons and Ammunition Law.

Especially revising Penal Law which includes 39 articles in which death penalty is stated, some of those articles are articles punishing for aggression on state security in which the legislator was excessive in using this punishment. These articles also were described as vague and that they include very wide phrases and words, but to state the death penalty articles shall be more specific and clear.

 It is noticed that the state shall not supervise the execution of death penalty.

 Yet, the second section of the recommendations was about guarantees concerning death penalty. This part tackled all available guarantees which can be suggested and put forward for discussion before specialists and decision makers and also before the Egyptian legislator and judge.

 At the end attendances make some recommendations which were represented in the following,

1- The necessity of regarding the opinion of Mufti in death sentences issued and to make his opinion obligatory for the court.

2- To put the case in which death sentence is issued before Court of Cassation as second degree.

3- The heads of the department which issued the sentence shall attend during the execution.

4-To expand in using systems of reconciliation, forgiveness, and blood money method.

5- To put the sentence issued by exceptional courts before Court of Cassation.

6- To prohibit transferring civilians to military judgment especially in the crimes judged by death penalty.

7- The judicial member who is attendant in the procedures of executing death penalty shall record what the criminal, who is subjected to death penalty, want to say in a separate record as permitted by law.