The right to visit prisons, detention places is one of the main mechanisms and powers granted to the NCHR (NCHR) under Law No. 197 of 2017 (Clause 16 of Article 3). This law enables council members to meet with to personally and directly verify the conditions of their stay and their living standards in a humane and rights-based manner. These visits are to be accompanied by recommendations and assessments aimed at improving their conditions, as well as reports to be submitted to both the Public Prosecutor and the Parliament regarding these visits.
This commentary aims to evaluate the performance of the NCHR, in its new formation since 2021, in its role of overseeing prisons—one of the council’s primary responsibilities, given that it is the subject of numerous complaints from citizens and increasing claims regarding the deterioration of the rights of inmates and prisoners in these facilities. This commentary is based on the council’s 16th report, which covers the period from 2020 to 2023, and in light of the Paris Principles on independent councils.
Contrary to the usual practice of the NCHR in previous years, where it issued annual reports covering each year and the state of human rights during that year, on September 3, 2023, the council published its 16th annual report on the state of human rights in Egypt, covering the period from December 1, 2020, to May 30, 2023. This report is a consolidated document covering three years.
Visits:
Regarding the visits conducted by the NCHR between 2021 and 2023, the report mentioned briefly and concisely that the visits were carried out at the leadership level of the NCHR —the NCHR’s president and vice president—as well as members of the council, the Secretary-General, and researchers from the technical secretariat. However, it did not provide details on the names of the members and researchers, unlike the usual transparency in previous council visits, where the visiting delegations were more clearly and thoroughly detailed.
In contrast to previous years, during the period covered by the report, there was no mention of any visits being allowed or any requests for visits from international or local independent human rights organizations being accepted. Additionally, there were no representatives of such organizations included in the NCHR’s delegations in its visits to prisons, which were covered by the 16th report.
Regarding the timing of the visits, the council does not follow a regular pattern in visiting prisons. It was noted that the visits were not conducted at regular intervals, nor were periodic reports issued to monitor the conditions of Egyptian prisons.
Regarding the number and distribution of visits across detention places, they were as follows: In 2021, the council visited two old prisons, Borg El Arab Prison and Damo Prison in Fayoum. In 2022, the number of visits increased to 10, covering new prisons/ rehabilitation and correctional centers. The report collectively described the facilities of these new centers, which included “the hospital, mosques, church, seminar halls, libraries, kitchens, bakeries, educational and hobby facilities, workshop areas, construction projects, etc.”
Each visit also included extensive discussions with officials from the social protection sector, officials from the targeted rehabilitation centers, and reviews of complaints received from prisoners. In 2023, the council’s visits decreased again, with only two visits—one to the Prison/ Rehabilitation Center in the 10th of Ramadan five months after its opening and the other to the Juvenile Correctional Institution, in El-Marg.
According to the report, the council’s delegation inspected the wards, reviewed the security and monitoring procedures used, noted the lack of surveillance cameras inside the women’s cells at the 10th of Ramadan Prison, and inspected the prison’s facilities. Thus, the visits to the prisons primarily coincided with the opening of these facilities to familiarize themselves with the amenities. As for the Juvenile Correctional Institution in El Marg, the council’s report limited its comments to the need for building renovations, the workshops’ failure to meet safety and occupational health standards, and the shortage of social workers and psychologists at the institution. The council also recommended the importance of alternative penalties in the Child Law.
On another note, the council’s visits to women’s prisons from 2021 to the end of the report period were few. The council visited only three women’s prisons out of 14 visits: the Women’s Prison in Minya Center 3, Qanater Women’s Prison, and the women’s section in the 10th of Ramadan Prison.
The first half of 2023 is notably absent from the report in terms of any visits conducted by the council to detention places. Additionally, there was no mention in the report of any meetings between the members of the council’s delegation and any of the inmates of the prisons or juvenile correctional institutions they visited to hear their complaints and conditions. Similarly, the report did not indicate that the council’s delegation members requested or actually visited the wards and cells to inspect the actual living conditions of the prisoners and inmates or sought to conduct such monitoring, which is the core and purpose of the legally mandated visits by the council. This is related to the fact that the council’s visits to these places occurred around the time of the inauguration of these facilities, where the full capacity of these facilities had not yet been occupied, thus not allowing for a realistic assessment of the challenges and issues after the full operational capacity of these facilities.
This reflects, in some way, the ongoing issue of the NCHR members’ lack of actual authority to conduct interviews with prisoners, as clearly highlighted in the council’s previous reports before the 16th one. The previous council sought during its visits to meet prisoners, visit the wards and cells, assess their conditions, and speak freely with them. However, prison administrations and Ministry of Interior officials rejected this, insisting that this authority belonged exclusively to the prosecution, or required prior approval from the Public Prosecutor. Although Article 3 of the NCHR Law No. 197 stipulates the council’s right to visit detention places and hold interviews with inmates, this provision conflicts with other legal texts that restrict and nullify the effectiveness of these visits. The Prison Law, in Article 73, as amended by Law No. 106 of 2015, limits the NCHR’ visits to prisons by requiring prior approval from the Public Prosecutor, as determined by internal regulations. According to the internal regulations of prisons, amendment No. 345 of 2017 added a new article (Article 76 bis) regulating the council’s visits to prisons, further restricting them by referring to Article 42 of the Prison Law, which states that “visits may be completely or partially prohibited during certain times for health or security reasons.” In addition to requiring prior approval from the Public Prosecutor, the article also mandates specifying the prison to be visited, the names of the visiting council members, the names of the prisoners to be visited, and the purpose of the visit. In contrast, the Prison Law grants full and unconditional authority to the Public Prosecutor, his deputies, heads and deputies of the courts of appeal, primary courts, investigating judges, the President and Deputy President of the Court of Cassation, as well as the Assistant Minister of the Interior for the Prison Sector, governors, and directors to supervise and visit prisons at any time without needing prior approval from any administrative or judicial authority.
This undermines the council’s authority to monitor detention places compared to other state institutions. Moreover, the council has not sought to amend these legal texts to remove the conflict and contradictions between them and the council’s governing law, which hinders its ability to carry out its practical and technical powers independently and impartially, as required by the Paris Principles for independent councils.
The council’s annual report—similar to previous reports—mentioned that the council’s delegation on prison visits was continuously accompanied by multiple high-ranking officials from the Ministry of Interior and the Prison Authority, which impedes the delegation from performing their monitoring tasks naturally. It also prevents communication with inmates due to the presence of these senior officials and the resulting overcrowding. In its previous visits before 2020, the former council expressed reservations about this, as it prevented them from entering all facilities and communicating with all staff and prisoners in these locations. However, the current council’s report did not address this issue, either negatively or positively.
A Photo from One of the National Council’s Visits to the 10th Ramadan Prison for women
The 16th report, covering the period from 2020-2023, does not specify the composition of the National Council’s delegation during each of the 14 visits it made to various rehabilitation centers or prisons, including women’s prisons. It fails to clarify whether the delegation included female members—whether at the leadership level of the current Council or among the researchers and technical staff—to address the specific needs of women in these facilities and to ensure that their particular needs are considered.
Instead, the report generally and vaguely states that the visits included a delegation of Council leaders—its president, vice president, researchers, and technical staff—without listing their specific names or identities. It does not specify whether the composition of the delegation remained consistent across all 14 visits or whether it varied. Similarly, the composition of the visits, as outlined in the 16th report, reflects the Council’s increased focus on new rehabilitation and correctional centers expected to replace older prisons. At the same time, there has been a noticeable decrease in visits to older prisons, with only two out of the 14 visits conducted at these facilities, even though they still constitute the majority of the prisons in Egypt.
Complaints from Detainees:
The report omits any efforts made by the council in 2022 to receive complaints or requests regarding prisoners or detention rights, or to submit and refer reports to the relevant authorities regarding prisoners’ rights for consideration and improvement of their conditions. The council’s investigative efforts to receive complaints, requests, and reports are divided into two time periods: December 2020 – December 2023, and from January to May 2023. This omission makes 2022 a year of inactivity for the council’s oversight work regarding prisons and detention facilities concerning investigation and inquiry, according to the council’s documents and report.
Regarding complaints from detainees in prisons and those held in pretrial detention during the period covered by the 16th report, it states that the council received 2,065 complaints concerning prisoners and detainees and their conditions without specifying the detention centers from which these complaints originated, nor clarifying the content of the complaints submitted by the detainees or their complainants. This differs from the council’s previous work, which typically included summaries of some of the complaints it received about detainee conditions and the detention facilities mentioned in those complaints, along with the initials of the detainees’ relatives who submitted the complaints.
The 16th report categorizes the received complaints regarding detention conditions as follows: 307 requests related to healthcare, accounting for 14% of the total complaints; 30 complaints related to visits, comprising 1.4% of the total; and 94 concerning allegations of torture and mistreatment, making up 4.5%, without providing detailed explanations of the contents of these requests. As for the responses and clarifications the council received from the Ministry of Interior and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, it received 109 responses regarding healthcare, 19 responses concerning visits, and 91 responses related to allegations of torture and mistreatment. Overall, it is impossible to ascertain the nature of the responses in these cases concerning the complainants, whether they resulted in a resolution of the complaints, dismissal of their grounds, or simply an administrative response from the Ministry of Interior for record-keeping purposes, or denial of the existence of the issue altogether.
This occurs while human rights organizations and personal accounts from the relatives of detainees and prisoners continue to document ongoing violations faced by prisoners, including living conditions, denial of visits, restrictions on exercise, and exposure to cruel and degrading treatment inside detention facilities, including in new prisons. Since the opening of the Badr rehabilitation and correction center, EFHR had documented numerous violations against the detainees there. Additionally, several families of detainees at Badr 3 have filed official complaints with the NCHR regarding their relatives being deprived of their legal visitation rights, being barred from bringing in food, books, clothes, blankets, and hygiene supplies. They requested the council to conduct a special visit to Badr Prison to investigate these complaints and verify their validity, but no response has been publicly disclosed by the council in this regard, despite two years passing since these reports and complaints about Badr emerged, not even for the sake of following up on the new detention facilities that the council has already visited at their inauguration to assess their construction conditions.
The complaints also extend to the situation of female detainees in the new detention facilities, such as the 10th Ramadan Prison for women, where there are complaints about detainees suffering from health issues due to deliberate medical neglect, with no notable response or intervention from the council in this regard. Moreover, these complaints are not limited to poor treatment and inadequate detention conditions but also include reports of deaths occurring in detention facilities and prisons without any evidence of the council intervening to investigate these cases, determine the causes of death, and hold responsible parties accountable.
Furthermore, the 16th report does not indicate that the results of the council’s visits to detention facilities were communicated to the House of Representatives or the Public Prosecutor as stipulated by the law governing the council and establishing it, to enhance oversight responsibilities. Instead, the council’s observations were limited to the quality of construction standards at rehabilitation and correction centers and praise for the Ministry of Interior’s plan to improve the structural integrity of prisons and their facilities. Regarding the penal institution in Al-Marg, the council commented on the need for improvements to the buildings, the inadequacy of the workshops concerning occupational safety and health standards, and the shortage of social and psychological specialists at the institution. The council also recommended the importance of alternative penalties in the child law.
Conclusion:
The 16th report of the NCHR reflects a significant regression in the council’s oversight functions regarding the prisons compared to its previous work patterns, which were usually detailed annually, providing specifics on the types of complaints and requests related to detention centers from citizens. This reflected the council’s serious engagement with complaints and enhanced public trust in it.
This decline in performance signifies issues with the current composition of the council, threatening its independence and effectiveness, and reflects a considerable deviation in the council’s oversight and inspection work concerning law enforcement agencies to improve human rights conditions, especially in penal facilities. It shows a diminished interest in conducting close annual oversight of prisons and detention centers in favor of focusing on other tasks, as noted in the 16th report. Additionally, the report demonstrates a tendency to obscure a considerable amount of information regarding the council’s performance and activities related to prison oversight, the types of complaints it receives, and the nature of the official responses it obtains from the Ministry of Interior and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
This threatens the values of transparency, accountability, and the ability to monitor the council’s performance, reflecting a retreat from what the council itself has implemented in previous years. The report also does not clarify the fate of complaints that received no response, only affirming that the Ministry of Interior and the Public Prosecutor’s Office are the most responsive entities to the council’s reports, while the report indicates that the council received responses from the Ministry of Interior at a rate of only 58% and from the Public Prosecutor’s Office at a rate of only 56%, which are extremely high rates.