The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) calls on the Public Prosecution to accept the request submitted by the victim in Case No. 14310 of 2024 (Maadi Misdemeanours) to relaunch an investigation into her case and reveal the circumstances of the sexual assault on her by a doctor during medical examination.

The incident dates back to September 2024, when the victim was sexually assaulted by a urologist (W.M.A.) inside his clinic in Maadi when she resorted to him for medical advice. The doctor exceeded the medical examination and committed the crime of sexual assault by subjecting the patient to a non-medical procedure, which he claimed was necessary for her condition. The victim made sure that the doctor had lied to her when she consulted other doctors of the same specialty about the treatment of “vaginal pus”. However, it included undergoing a “cleaning” procedure performed by the doctor himself. The doctors confirmed to her that she had undergone an unnecessary procedure and that she was a victim of sexual assault.

Accordingly, the victim filed an official complaint against the doctor. However, the Maadi Prosecution decided there was no reason to file a criminal case temporarily due to insufficient evidence, and assigned the police to continue the investigation to strengthen the evidence.

As a result, the victim’s lawyers, including an EIPR lawyer, requested the Public Prosecutor to reopen the investigation into the incident, after the Maadi Prosecution decided to close it.

The request was based on several reasons, including the emergence of new evidence supporting the accusations against the defendant, as an audio recording emerged in which the defendant confessed to committing the crime of sexual assault on the victim during the medical examination. The Prosecution did not examine this evidence before deciding that there was no basis for filing the case, which would allow the resumption of investigation and examination of the new evidence.

The request is also based on the fact that the Prosecution’s investigation was inadequate. The prosecution did not seek the opinion of a urologist regarding the safety of the procedure to which the complainant was subjected, to check its conformity or contradiction with medical protocols, and to determine whether the procedure deviated from the proper medical course of treatment and violated the patient’s body, which is criminalised by law. The defendant’s statements before the Public Prosecution were consistent with the victim’s statements and confirmed by the police investigations.

The Prosecution also ignored the request to check whether the defendant had a criminal record, especially since the Doctors’ Syndicate said in the investigation that it had received many complaints against the doctor, including a complaint that he beat a patient, which reinforces suspicions against him and supports the possibility of a criminal precedent. The police investigation confirmed the validity of the incident, stating that the doctor sexually assaulted the patient, taking advantage of his position and authority as a doctor to delude her into a medical examination.

The request to reopen the investigation is also based on the fact that the Public Prosecution did not inquire from the defendant’s employer about his disciplinary sanctions file, especially given the existence of union complaints against him. This necessitates inquiring about his disciplinary record to ensure that no similar complaints were filed against him.

However, the head of the Cairo Appeals Prosecution rejected the request, without seriously examining the new evidence.

EIPR warns of the repercussions of not seriously investigating crimes of violence against women, which perpetuates the lack of justice and conveys a message of tolerance for violence against women in general.

EIPR also hopes that the role of the Doctors’ Syndicate will be activated, and the defendant will be punished. The victim’s lawyers filed a union complaint, No. 270 of 2024, against the doctor, whose union file revealed that two complaints were filed against him, including a complaint that he had assaulted a patient during a medical examination.

EIPR hopes that the Doctors’ Syndicate will not drop the complaints filed against the doctor under the pretext of closing the criminal investigation, as this could lead to the recurrence of assault on patients. Activating union accountability will also contribute to reducing the criminal Prosecution of doctors or imposing heavy fines.