I. Court Rulings and Trials

1. On 17 January 2009, the Supreme Administrative Court, headed by Judge Ismail Siddiq, issued a ruling upholding the Court of Administrative Justice’s decision to annul the dismissal of Adli Mikhail Yaqub from clerical service in the Nahdat al-Qadasa churches. After Yaqub was dismissed from his position as a pastor at the Fayyoum Nahdat al-Qadasa church and defrocked, he filed a suit against Munir Hakim Gindi, the president of the General Synod of the Nahdat al-Qadasa Church of Evangelical Copts in the Arab Republic of Egypt, and Safwat Nagib al-Bayadi, the head of the evangelical community, to which the Nahdat al-Qadasa church belongs. Yaqub contested the decision to fire him, issued in 2000, arguing that the decision was unjustified and was not issued by the competent authority. The Court of Administrative Justice ruled in his favor on 12 April 2005, in two petitions (14314 / 54 and 8005 / 58), ordering the defendants to compensate Yaqub in the amount of LE5,000. The president of the General Synod appealed the ruling before the Supreme Administrative Court.

The ruling issued by the Supreme Administrative Court in appeal no. 14275 / 51, a copy of which was obtained by the EIPR, states that the administrative court system has the authority to monitor the legality of church decisions on the grounds that “the recognized evangelical churches, including the Nahdat al-Qadasa churches, are considered a party legally empowered to administer a public service, for which purpose they enjoy some measure of the competency of public authorities. As such, the decisions of the General Synod of the Nahdat al-Qadasa churches are equivalent to administrative decisions that can be appealed.” Regarding the legal statute that regulates the contested church decision, the court stated that the High Order of 1902 concerning evangelical Christian nationals contains no article regulating decisions to dismiss clerical personnel from service in the church, leading the court to turn to provisions found in the charter of the Nahdat al-Qadasa church. Applying these provisions to the facts of the case at hand, the court found that “the cleric was not allowed a fair, impartial hearing as mandated by the charter of the Nahdat al-Qadasa church.” In turn, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s ruling to annul the church’s decision to dismiss Yaqub.

2. On 27 January 2009, a Khalifa misdemeanor court headed by Judge Walid Tuyur moved to reject the civil and criminal suits filed by a Coptic lawyer against Max Michel Hanna, which demanded that Hanna be charged under those sections of the Penal Code that criminalize fraudulence and impersonation. The lawsuit, no. 7788 / 2008, stated that in April 2008, during an appearance on an Orbit satellite channel program, Max Michel claimed to be the archbishop of an Orthodox Christian denomination calling itself the Holy Assembly of the Church of St. Athanasius, and he showed his official identity card on the program, which identified him as “his eminence the archbishop.” The plaintiff argued that this was tantamount to intentionally deceiving “simple-minded Egyptian Copts.” The court rejected the petition on the grounds that the plaintiff had no legal standing to file the case.

Notably, on 6 July 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld a decree issued by the Ministry of Interior that refused to recognize the new denomination led by Max Michel. The court reasoned that “the state’s obligation to respect the freedom of religious practice by a particular religious group does not entail an administrative recognition of the group” (see paragraph 2 of the Third Quarterly Report, 2008).

3. On 2 February 2009, the Court of Cassation in Cairo began considering an appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor contesting a ruling revoking Kamilia Lutfi Gaballah’s custody of her twin sons, Mario and Andrew, and transferring custody to their father, who had converted to Islam from Christianity. The Public Prosecutor filed appeal no. 15277 / 78 based on the right to contest judicial rulings that cannot be appealed by the parties to the case “in the general interest of the law...if the ruling is based on a violation of the law or an error in its application or interpretation”, as stipulated by Article 250 of the Code of Civil Procedures. Since the law establishing the family courts does not allow parties to the case to contest appellant rulings, on 5 November 2008 Gaballah filed a request with the Public Prosecutor (no. 18308 / 2008) asking him to contest the ruling.

In his brief to the court, a copy of which was obtained by the EIPR, Public Prosecutor Abd al-Megid Mahmoud asked the court to overturn the ruling issued on 24 September 2008 by the Alexandria Appeals Court which granted custody of Mario and Andrew (aged 14) to their father, who converted to Islam in 2000 and changed his children’s religion in 2006. In issuing its ruling, the Alexandria court relied on its own interpretation of Islamic law, although Article 20 of the Personal Status Law states that children are to remain in the custody of their mother until the age of 15 and makes no mention of the mother’s religion (see paragraph 8 of the Third Quarterly Report, 2008).
In his brief, the Public Prosecutor argued that the absence of a legal text specifying cases in which custody is to be denied to mothers required the court to turn to the preponderant opinions in the Hanafi school of law, according to Article 3 of Law 1 / 2000, which regulates certain situations and legal procedures in matters of personal status. The Public Prosecutor said that the court’s interpretation of the application of law in the Hanifi school was flawed and that before revoking custody from the mother, the court needed to show cause, rather than simply citing the fact that the children had reached the age of seven. (In the Hanifi school of law, seven is the age at which children obtain the ability to distinguish between religions.)

At the same time, the Public Prosecutor argued that the court should have left the choice to the children themselves since they were seven years of age at the time, which is considered the age of religious maturity by the Hanafi school of law “so that the children could exercise their role as defended by Islamic law [to choose] between remaining in the faith on which they were raised or voluntarily accepting the conversion to Islam.”

It is worth noting that the Court of Cassation’s ruling in this case will constitute a legal precedent for future cases involving custody rights over children born as Christians in the event that one parent converts to Islam. The ruling in the case is expected on 15 June 2009.

In November 2008, the African Union’s African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights decided to accept a petition on the children’s case filed by the EIPR in conjunction with the London-based International Center for the Legal Protection of Human Rights. The petition accuses the Egyptian government of violating the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which was ratified by the government and the People’s Assembly in 1984 (see paragraph 4 of the Fourth Quarterly Report, 2008).

4. On 3 February 2009, the Court of Administrative Justice, headed by Judge Mohamed Atiya, rejected a petition filed by Saad Baligh Abd al-Malak on behalf of the Assembly of the Churches of the Welcoming Brethren, part of the evangelical community, against the President, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Interior and the governor of Sohag. The petition, no. 17281 / 61, contested the state’s refusal to issue a presidential decree granting a license to worship in the denomination’s church, located on Mahrous Island in the district of Akhmim, Sohag governorate. The plaintiff stated that the evangelical community had repeatedly applied for a permit since 14 October 1989, to allow worship and religious services in the church and had also filed several petitions with successive interior ministers, but to no avail. According to the petition, “The people of the church tried to exercise their constitutional right to worship in the church, but security shut it down.”

The ruling, a copy of which was obtained by the EIPR, stated that the petition argued that decrees regulating the establishment of churches in Egypt are unconstitutional because they are inconsistent with human rights conventions and “impose restrictions on Christian citizens' ability to establish churches and engage in their religious practices, in violation of Article 40 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality for all citizens.” Nevertheless, the court ruling did not address the merits of the petition, rejecting it on formal grounds alone since the suit was not filed by an official representative of the evangelical community, as is required by the internal bylaws of the General Evangelical Council.

5. On 10 February 2009, the Court of Administrative Justice in Cairo, headed by Judge Mohamed Atiya, rejected a petition to reconsider a previous ruling rejecting a request from Habil Tawfiq Said to establish a new Christian denomination under the name of the Independent Orthodox Confession of St. Paul the Apostle in Egypt and to recognize him as the head of the group under the name Pope Habil II. An official recognition would give the group the right to build churches in Egypt. The court rejected the petition (no. 28658 / 62), which was filed against the President, the Minister of Interior, the Minister of justice and others, on the grounds that “it did not meet the qualifications for reconsideration as elaborated by the Code of Civil Procedures.”

On 25 December 2007, the Court of Administrative Justice had rejected petitions no. 19777 / 60 and 24279 / 60, both filed by Habil Tawfiq, contesting the state authorities’ refusal to recognize his new religious denomination. At the time, the court reasoned that although freedom of belief is absolute, the freedom to practice religious rites is dependent on legal regulation, which is governed by the principles of public order and morals within a legislative framework that regulates and oversees the right. As such, the court stated that the plaintiff had not met the legal conditions required to occupy the office of patriarch and there had been no action taken to nominate him as such within the Orthodox Coptic confession since the Orthodox rite in Egypt does not recognize the legal personality of independent churches. The plaintiff argued in his petition seeking a reconsideration of the ruling that the bylaws established to choose the Orthodox Coptic patriarch are irrelevant to his request since he is seeking to establish a new Orthodox confession, independent of the Orthodox Coptic Church headed by Pope Shenouda III.

6. The Eastern Cairo criminal court on 14 February 2009, began hearing the case of a crime committed in Cairo’s Amiriya district in October 2008 when a Christian youth, with the help of his uncle, used an automatic weapon to shoot his sister’s family. His sister had converted to Islam two years before and married a Muslim man and the couple had a ten-month-old daughter at the time. The Muslim man died following the assault, the child was wounded and the murderer’s sister was severely injured in the left arm, after which doctors decided to amputate it (see paragraph 9 of the Fourth Quarterly Report). In the first session of case no. 298 / 2009, the court heard witnesses’ statements; the case was still pending at the time this report was issued.

7. On 10 February 2009, the Court of Administrative Justice in Cairo began hearing a suit filed by Sister Evelyn Alphonse Fahmi against Father Yuannis, a bishop and the secretary to Pope Shenouda III. The plaintiff, who works at the House of the Virgin Mother convent in Omraniya, is seeking the suspension of a decree issued by Father Yuannis that deprives her of the church sacraments for “legal and financial” violations. In her suit (no. 8382 / 63), the plaintiff stated that the decision to deny her the sacraments violates the set of church laws known as the Didascalia, which regulate investigations into religious infractions and punish them. The case was still pending before the court at the time this report was issued.

8. On 17 February 2009, the Court of Administrative Justice headed by Judge Mohamed Atiya rejected the Minister of Defense’s request (no. 63544 / 62) for the suspension of a court order requiring the Ministry of Defense to issue a Baha'i university student a deferral for compulsory military service (Form 6) without requiring the student to obtain a national identity card. In 2006, Baha'i student Nayer Nabil al-Hamamsi found that he could not register for the final year of his studies at the School of Physical Education at the Suez Canal University until he showed proof of his military service status. The Ministry of Defense declined to issue him the relevant paperwork without a national identity card, refusing to accept the student’s paper ID and birth certificate. His parents being Baha'is, al-Hamamsi was unable to obtain a national identity card since the Ministry of Interior had refused since 2000 to issue any official identity documents to Egyptian Baha'is if they did not register their religion as Islam, Christianity or Judaism. On behalf of the student, the EIPR filed a lawsuit (no. 37774 / 60) with the Court of Administrative Justice in August 2006, naming the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Higher Education, the president of the Suez Canal University, and the dean of the School of Physical Education as parties to the suit. The suit asked that the student be given his military service card and be allowed to re-register at the university. On 29 May 2007, the court ruled in favor of the Baha'i student, prompting the Ministry of Defense to seek a suspension of the order, which the court refused (see also paragraph 11 of this report).

9. On 3 March 2009, the Court of Administrative Justice in Cairo began hearing petition no. 15358 / 63, filed by Butros Faltaos, the head of the First Baptist denomination, against the Minister of Interior and Dr. Safwat al-Bayadi, the head of the General Evangelical Confessional Council in Egypt. The petition contests the administrative decsion to cease treating the First Baptist Church as an independent Christian denomination.

On 24 November 2008, the plaintiff filed complaints with the President’s Office, the Ministry of Interior, State Security, and the National Council for Human Rights stating that the president of the General Evangelical Council had made several attempts to bring the First Baptist Church in Alexandria’s Ibrahimiya area under the umbrella of the evangelical confession and had managed to convince Alexandria security office to issue an order suspending recognition of the denomination and official Baptist seals. In the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by the EIPR, the plaintiff stated that the Baptists are an independent denomination not subject to the authority of the evangelical church in Egypt or any of its 17 denominations. He added that the refusal to recognize the church constituted a material and administrative obstacle for the church that prevented it from carrying out its business. The complaint also referred to Presidential Decree 99 / 1999 licensing the Baptist Church in Alexandria, which constitutes a recognition that the group is independent of the Evangelical Council, according to the complaint. The case was still pending before the court at the time this report was issued.

10. On 10 March 2009, the Court of Administrative Justice headed by Judge Mohamed Atiya rejected petition no. 11298 / 58, filed by Samuel Mashriqi Rizq against the Minister of Interior and the head of the General Evangelical Confessional Council contesting an order issued by the council revoking the Pentecostal Assembly of God’s status as an evangelical church. The petition states that the Pentecostal Church of God was approved as a denomination of the evangelical church in Egypt in 1946 before the General Evangelical Confessional Council issued an order in 1959 revoking the denomination’s status as an evangelical church.

In issuing its ruling, the court noted that the same dispute was the subject of a lawsuit in 1962, in which the court ruled that the law gives the confessional council the right to revoke official status from its subsidiary denominations. The court also noted that the previous ruling upheld the confessional council’s decision on the grounds that “the Pentecostal church has split and its members have been divided into two camps, each of which claims leadership for itself.” As such, the Court of Administrative Justice ruled that Father Samuel Mashriqi no longer has the legal standing that allows him to file a new lawsuit on behalf of the Pentecostal Assembly of God, which in turn has lost the legal personality that gives it the right to file suit. Thus, the court rejected the petition due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing.

11. On 16 March 2009, the Supreme Administrative Court headed by Judge Mustafa Said Mustafa put an end to a five-year legal battle waged by Egyptian Baha'is against the Ministry of Interior policy that requires them to claim affiliation with one of the three officially recognized religions—Islam, Christianity or Judaism—in order to obtain official, compulsory personal documents such as national identity cards and birth certificates. In appeal no. 10831 / 54, the Supreme Administrative Court’s Commissioners' Authority upheld the ruling of the Court of Administrative Justice issued on 29 January 2008 (in cases no. 18354 / 58 and 12780 / 61) requiring the Interior Ministry’s Civil Status Authority to place a dash (—) in the space allotted for religious affiliation on the official documents of Baha'i citizens (see paragraph 1 of the First Quarterly Report, 2008). Although the Interior Ministry—against which the ruling was issued in 2008—did not appeal, several lawyers contested the order and filed for suspensions. For more than a year, the Interior Ministry used the appeals pending before the court to refuse to implement the ruling of the lower Court of Administrative Justice when issuing official documents to Egyptian Baha'is, who number roughly 2,000. The Baha'i community has suffered gravely since the policy was instituted in 2000, since without these official documents they have been unable to register births or inoculate their children, enroll in schools or register at universities and obtain jobs and many other basic services.

Three days after the Supreme Administrative Court issued its ruling, the Minister of Interior issued a decree revising the Implementing Regulations of the Civil Status Law to conform with the ruling (see paragraph 28 of this report).

The Court of Administrative Justice itself rejected two appeals filed by several citizens seeking a suspension of the 29 January 2008 ruling issued in favor of Baha'is on the grounds that it violates the principles of public order. On 17 January 2009, the court rejected appeal no. 15866 / 62 and on 24 February 2009, it rejected appeal no. 61992 / 63.

12. The Court of Administrative Justice, headed by Judge Mohamed Atiya, ruled on 17 March 2009 to annul a decision dismissing Atef Fuad Mitri from the executive committee and general assembly of the General Pentecostal Synod, part of the evangelical confession in Egypt, and stripping him of his clerical title. According to the ruling in the case (no. 42974 / 59), a copy of which was obtained by the EIPR, the plaintiff explained that he is a pastor at the Pentecostal church in Shubra, part of the Pentecostal Synod of Evangelical Copts and also the president of the regional synod for Cairo and the Delta. He accused Father Girgis Murgan Baqtar (known as Aziz Murgan), the president of the General Pentecostal Synod in Egypt, of dismissing him and stripping him of his clerical rank “after the defendant learned that the plaintiff intended to nominate himself for the presidency of the synod against him.” In its ruling, the court stated that Baqtar’s decision, which was based on alleged administrative and financial infractions, had violated the bylaws and procedures of the basic charter of the Pentecostal Church of Evangelical Copts. The court added that the decision to dismiss Mitri without an investigation violated the Constitution “insofar as the Constitution states explicitly that the accused is innocent until he is convicted in a court of law in which he is allowed to defend himself.”