The United National Human Rights Council met in Geneva today, 2 July, to adopt the final report of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Egypt's human rights record, including the Egyptian government response and comments on the recommendations received during the review held last January. 

The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) regrets that the government's responses to the recommendations did not differ much from its performance during the review session, as it ignored the reality clear to everyone and continued to paint a parallel reality in which the state has achieved significant accomplishments in human rights, claiming guarantees that do not exist in reality, and describing dozens of  recommendations as “already implemented”. As usual, the government informed the Council that it accepted a large number of recommendations, but rejected those that required it to take concrete and measurable steps before the next review in four years, whether too amend legislation, ratify an international human rights convention, undertake specific institutional reform, or release detainees.

EIPR commends the majority of UN Council members for submitting recommendations that addressed most aspects of the worsening human rights crisis in Egypt—even if many of them were couched in general terms that did not include specific practical steps. EIPR stresses the Egyptian government's responsibility to translate its rhetoric, which is divorced from reality, into urgent steps to end its gross, systematic, and widespread violations that have come to affect all sectors of Egyptian society.

Last January, 137 countries submitted more than 370 recommendations to Egypt to improve the human rights situation. The recommendations covered a wide range of issues, such as torture, the “recycling” of prisoners, political detention, enforced disappearances, prosecutions of journalists and human rights activists, gender inequality, inadequate social spending, the enactment of flawed laws on criminal procedures, asylum and NGOs, and and other systematic human rights violations in Egypt. The final review report combined similar recommendations, resulting in a final total of 343 combined ones. According to its response, the government decided to support 264 of the recommendations in full (77%), partially supported 16 (5%), and “noted” —i.e., rejected—62 (18%).

“Already implemented”... really?

A reading of Egypt's comments on the recommendations, whether those it accepted in full or in part or those it rejected with the phrase “noted”, reveals a pattern of using the phrase “already implemented” concerning 43 recommendations, including claims not based on any factual basis. For example, the government's report claims that it has “already implemented” recommendations calling for a comprehensive law on violence against women; a law criminalising domestic violence, including marital rape; the criminalisation of all forms of corporal punishment of children; the publication of an executive programme for its National Human Rights Strategy; ensuring the independence of the National Council for Human Rights and granting it the authority to inspect places of detention; repealing all laws that discriminate against women and girls, limiting the use of the death penalty to the most serious crimes; and even releasing all prisoners who have spent more than two years in pretrial detention.

The most blatant example of what the Egyptian government claims to have already implemented is its assertion that freedom of expression is guaranteed both online and offline,, as are the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association and the safe operation of human rights defenders. The Egyptian government makes this claim while detaining thousands on charges that contradict the explicit provisions of the Constitution prohibiting the deprivation of liberty for publication offences, including “spreading false news”, “violating the family values of Egyptian society” and the “misuse of communication tools”. This is in addition to the politicised use of abusive provisions of the Penal Code and Terrorism Law to bring charges of membership, participation and financing of “terrorist” or illegal groups against dissidents, lawyers, journalists, human rights defenders, peaceful protesters, and even citizens who use social media of all political persuasions. Even our colleagues at EIPR have not escaped these false accusations and the ensuing prosecutions, which are still ongoing. 

On the other hand, Egypt enthusiastically accepted recommendations with overly broad wording, especially those calling on it to “continue its efforts” in a particular area, or those containing general references that do not specify a particular law or practice. Thus, it is impossible to measure the extent to which they have been implemented, echoing the wording of the National Human Rights Strategy, which is four years into its five-year term and remains generally unimplemented.

Rejection cloaked in “noted”

This time, the Egyptian government decided not to respond to any recommendations with an overt rejection, as it had done in the three previous reviews,instead using the term “noted” to refer to all the recommendations it did not accept and is therefore not committed to implementing.

Egypt justified its rejection of many of the recommendations by describing them as “not possible for Egypt to implement at the present stage due to constitutional and legal obstacles, or because they conflict with the national value system, or because they contain inaccurate information”. Looking at these recommendations, it is difficult to understand how they conflict with the Egyptian Constitution, as they include, for instance, ratification of the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, the International Labour Organisation’s Convention against Violence and Harassment in the Workplace, among others.

This implicit rejection of any recommendation calling on the Egyptian government to ratify new international human rights conventions or invite certain UN special rapporteurs to visit Egypt is a continuation of a consistent approach adopted by the Egyptian government since its first periodic review in 2010, which is to reject any additional international commitments, especially in the case of protocols and conventions that include a mechanism for receiving individual complaints or periodic monitoring. This is evident in the government's steadfast refusal throughout previous sessions to ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the abolition of the death penalty, the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture on measures to prevent torture, or the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, despite the government's claim that it is already criminalized under Egyptian law and does not exist in practice.

In rejecting another set of recommendations behind the phrase “noted”, the Egyptian government claims that the terrorism law is used only against acts of terror and not against journalists, human rights defenders, and peaceful protesters, and that the Egyptian Constitution does not allow the use of criminal laws to restrict freedom of opinion and expression, among other myths. The government rejected any allegations of restrictions on civil society activities, any form of arbitrary detention, or requirements that limit the right to peaceful assembly or demonstration, or freedom of traditional or digital media, or that Egyptian laws are used to punish individuals for their sexual orientation. It did not accept a recommendation to unblock independent news websites and guarantee the freedom and safety of civil society and human rights defenders, a recommendation that the government said contained “incorrect references to restrictions imposed on non-governmental organisations and independent media platforms”. The government also rejected any recommendation calling for concrete amendments to the provisions of legislation regulating expression, association or peaceful assembly.

In the same context, the Egyptian government refused to discuss the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, noting that citizenship rights are enshrined in the Constitution in a manner that guarantees equality among all citizens. This is even though the Constitution itself discriminates between citizens based on religion and belief, recognising only the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism). The failure to recognise smaller religious groups such as the Baha'is results in their being denied full civil rights such as marriage, divorce, freedom to worship, the free expression of their beliefs, and the allocation of cemeteries for the burial of their dead. The government also evaded any commitments regarding recommendations calling for equality, non-discrimination against religious minorities, and their protection.

Limited positives

On the positive side, Egypt endorsed important recommendations on various topics, including increasing spending on health, education and social security; establishing social protection programmes to mitigate the impact of the economic crisis; achieving 100% universal health coverage by 2030; strengthening mental health services, ensuring that all children enjoy the right to quality education; respecting the right of migrants to non-refoulement, ensuring that they and their children have access to basic services; and increasing government spending on family planning. While we recognise that most of these recommendations merely call on the government to consider taking steps that are unspecific or practically measurable as a whole, we welcome the government's endorsement of these recommendations and intend to play our part in monitoring its commitment to these pledges.

Ultimately, Egypt's responses to the recommendations of the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review were consistent with both its national report and its comments during the review: according to the government, the human rights situation in Egypt is at its best, and many of the recommendations do not require effort because they have already been implemented. Thus, the response to recommendations continues to paint a parallel reality that only the state sees regarding the human rights situation in Egypt.

Background

EIPR submitted five separate reports to the UPR mechanism before the review, including an individual report providing an overview of the deterioration of the human rights situation since the previous review session in 2019; as well as four joint reports with other organisations: The first report addressed systematic violations within the criminal justice system, such as torture, enforced disappearances, unfair trials and poor detention conditions. The second covered the rights of human rights defenders and the misuse of terrorism laws to punish them, while the third addressed the crisis of women's and girls' rights in Egypt. The fourth was dedicated to violations of digital freedoms, freedom of expression, and media freedoms. EIPR also issued a commentary on the government's report submitted for the Universal Periodic Review, entitled “Parallel Reality”.