Wednesday 26/November/2025 – 03:40 PM
The First Circuit for Rights and Freedoms of the Administrative Judicial Court set a session for December 13 to consider the lawsuit filed by Hani Sameh, the lawyer, and a number of relatives of those sentenced to death. To demand a halt and suspension of the implementation of death sentences issued in premeditated murder cases, following the issuance of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code by Law No. 174 of 2025.
Considering a lawsuit challenging the continued implementation of death sentences
The lawsuit is based primarily on the principle of the law that is best for the accused, which must be applied with immediate effect, and on the principle of precautionary interpretation in the interest of humanity, as well as on the constitutional right to life.
The lawsuit explained that the new Criminal Procedure Code, which was published in the Official Gazette on November 12, introduced a text that allows for the first time the conciliation system for premeditated murder crimes, and this conciliation entails that the sentence must be reduced to a custodial sentence in accordance with Article 17 of the Penal Code.
The appellants indicated that they had submitted serious petitions and requests to the Public Prosecutor, including a general petition bearing No. 1436584, demanding the issuance of instructions or periodic letters halting the execution of executions in this category of cases, establishing a clear mechanism to ask blood relatives about their position on pardon or reconciliation, and enabling mediation institutions such as Al-Azhar and the National Council for Human Rights to intervene.
The lawsuit considered that the Public Prosecution’s failure to take these necessary positive measures, and its failure to issue any public circular regulating the implementation of this new criminal policy, represents a “negative administrative decision” that may be appealed before the administrative judiciary.
The petition argued that the postponement of the entry into force of the new law until October 1, 2026, for technical and procedural considerations, could not obstruct the immediate application of criminal rules that are more merciful and beneficial to the accused, especially since the matter concerns the irreversible death penalty.
The lawsuit warned that continuing to implement the rulings during the transitional period, in the presence of a confirmed, more correct text, would empty the new law of its content and contradict the will of the legislator. The lawsuit supported its position with the principle of precautionary interpretation for the benefit of humanity, stressing that the state’s duty, when there is tension between two interpretations of the temporary text, is to choose the interpretation that protects life and does not accelerate its loss.
The lawsuit also demanded that the Public Prosecutor be obligated to issue a circular or general publication to the Public Prosecutions, the Prisons Service, and the relevant authorities, which includes suspending the implementation of death sentences in the aforementioned premeditated murder crimes, opening the door to receiving requests for reconciliation and pardon from heirs and blood relatives, and applying the text created by the new Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 17 Penalties as a law that is more suitable for the accused.
It also called for establishing an official mechanism to address and ask blood relatives about their position on free pardon, reconciliation in return, or insistence on retaliation, documenting these positions and re-presenting them when circumstances change or minors reach the age of majority, and concluding practical cooperation protocols with the Supreme Committee for Reconciliation at Al-Azhar, the National Council for Human Rights, and other relevant councils, to enable them to intervene in the death penalty files in place of the new text, and to seek reconciliatory solutions and pardon whenever possible.
