Generally, pursuant to Article 61 of the Penal Code, no penalty will be imposed on a perpetrator of a crime if he/she had to commit it due to the necessity of protecting himself/herself because a third party formed a grievous danger to his/her person, which was impending and about to occur to himself/herself or to a third party, and in which his/her had nothing to do with its occurrence and it was beyond his/her power to prevent its occurrence by another way.
To this end, Article 245 of the Penal Code provides that no penalty at all will be inflicted on whoever kills another or beats or injures him/her with wounds in using lawful self-defense or legitimately defending his/her property and funds, or another person's life or property and funds.
The Penal Code provides for the conditions from which this right arises and the restrictions connected as Article 246 of the Penal Code states that the right of lawful self-defense allows a person, other than in the exceptional cases defined hereinafter, to use the power necessary to obviate any act considered a crime on one's life as prescribed in this law. Yet, Article 247 indicates that such a right would have no existence once it is possible to rely on the protection of the public authorities.
Article 249 provides that the right of lawful self-defense does not allow premeditated killing unless it is meant to defend against one of the following matters: first, an act feared to cause death or deep wounds if such fear is based on plausible reasons; second, sexual intercourse with a woman or assaulting a person indecently by force; and third, kidnapping a person.
Article 251 of the Penal Code provides that whoever exceeds in good faith the limits of the right of lawful self-defense while using this right and without having the intent to cause greater harm than the demands of this defense will not be fully exempted from punishment. However, in case the act constitutes a felony, the judge may consider it excusable and pass a ruling sentencing him/her to detention instead of the penalty prescribed in the law.
Based on the above, the lawyer will need to verify before the court that the victim has lawfully used the right to defend herself as her fear was based on plausible reasons as she was under grievous danger, her response was compatible with the threat and it was not possible to rely in due course on seeking the protection of the public authorities. In other words, the woman will not be considered to be in a state of self-defense if the conditions set out under the law are not fulfilled.
If the lawyer is able to establish the above and the court based on its broad and sole discretion is convinced that the conditions of lawful self-defense exist, the court may discharge the woman who was subject to such attack.
Battered woman syndrome is not an established defense under Egyptian law. However, from a practical perspective, a judge can consider it as a complete defense or can consider it to reduce the sentence to a minimum.
In addition, it is important to highlight that the Prosecutor's Office has recently started resorting to alternatives other than temporary jail detention for women with a mental or psychological illness/disorder/condition due to their upbringing or personal lives. In a recent case, the defendant was offered three months in a specialized center for women suffering from domestic violence and/or other challenges under the supervision of the Ministry of Social Solidarity.
Employee matters are related to employment relations. Employee courts would not intervene in domestic violence matters unless, for example, an employee who was a victim of domestic violence was denied sick leave or his/her employment was terminated as a result.
Generally, termination under the Labor Law must be for justified cause and must not be abusive. An employer is not free to terminate its employees for convenience. Moreover, an employer cannot lawfully dismiss an employee unless it complies with certain procedural steps. If such procedures are not complied with, this would be deemed unlawful termination. Accordingly, the employer may not terminate an indefinite or definite agreement unless it is able to establish the incompetence of the employee or that the employee has materially breached their obligations.
Pursuant to Article 69 of the Labor Law, an employee may only be terminated if they commit a grave fault or due to non-performance, such as the following:
- presenting false identification or certification;
- being guilty of an act that causes serious material damage to the employer, provided that the employer notifies the competent authorities of such incident within 24 hours following the employer's knowledge of its occurrence
- failing to observe safety regulations after being notified in writing, provided that such safety regulations were clearly posted
- being absent without an acceptable cause for more than 20 intermittent days in one year or more than 10 consecutive days, provided that the termination is preceded by a written notice served by registered mail following the 10 absent days in the first event and five absent days in the second event
- divulging work secrets causing serious damage to the establishment, competing with the employer in the same field of activity or being found intoxicated or under the influence of drugs during working hours
- evidence of having assaulted the employer or general manager, or to have brutally assaulted their supervisors during work or as a result thereof
- not abiding by the provisions of law governing strikes
Technically, the foregoing events are only listed as examples of a material breach. However, it is our understanding that the courts apply the above list as an inclusive list of events that would enable the employer, subject to the fulfillment of other conditions, to terminate an employment agreement. We also note that establishing the occurrence of one of the foregoing events is usually difficult for the employer.
Termination for committing a grave fault requires the employer to first petition the competent labor office or the labor court. Termination outside the scope of the above events is deemed unjust and it would require compensating the employee.
Further, if the employee is charged with committing a crime or a misdemeanor of moral turpitude, or a breach of honor or honesty, or committing a misdemeanor within the circle of work, the employer may provisionally suspend them from work and refer the matter to court. In the event the court approves the suspension, the employee will be paid half their wage, but in case the suspension is not approved, the employee's wage will be paid to them in full from the date of their suspension. If the concerned authority decides not to bring the employee to criminal trial or if the employee is brought to trial and is acquitted, the employee will be returned to work along with the settling of full dues. Refusing to return will be considered an arbitrary discharge.
Generally, in the event the employee is imprisoned, meaning that they cannot report to work, the employer will file a lawsuit before the court to dismiss the employee. This is the practice whenever an employee is accused of committing a crime and is imprisoned regardless of the nature of the charges.
This is not regulated under the Labor Law and, hence, the option to take leave remains subject to the arrangement with the employer.
Previously, the Decision of the Ministry of Interior No. 3937 of 1996 stipulated that the husband's approval was required to obtain the wife's travel document and his consent was required for her to travel abroad. However, this decision was repealed based on the ruling of the Supreme Constitutional Court.
Yes. They can obtain immigration remedies if they are able to prove that they were battered, as highlighted in the response below.
On the one hand, there is no specific law regulating domestic violence in Egypt. However, the Constitution states that the state is obliged to protect women against any form of violence. In addition, it granted the NCW the right to report any violation to the public authorities related to their domain. Moreover, the Penal Code stipulates the criminalization of forms of violence in its various texts, including beating, wounding, discrimination or psychological violence, including insulting a person, which are crimes under the articles of the law. These provisions are strictly applicable to those who commit these crimes without discrimination between a man or a woman. According to the official website of the NCW, the NCW had already prepared a draft law protecting women from violence.
On the other hand, political asylum to Egypt is granted under the Constitution to every foreigner who has been persecuted for defending peoples' interests, human rights, peace or justice. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is the entitled body to grant refugee status in Egypt according to the criteria of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees ("1951 Convention") and its protocols that Egypt ratified in 1981.
The refugee definition contained in the 1951 Convention forms the core of the eligibility criteria for mandating refugee status. Pursuant to Article 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention, the term "refugee" applies to the following:
A person who … owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
From the reading of the above article, being prosecuted for membership in a particular social group along with the other criteria could grant a person refugee status and, accordingly, the right to asylum. Therefore, it is possible to access asylum to Egypt for being a victim of domestic violence on the condition that the person fulfills all the criteria stated in the 1951 Convention according to the examination of the case conducted by the UNHCR in Egypt.
No, according to Law No. 25 of 1966 on Martial Courts, the martial courts are only competent to review specific violations and crimes that do not include domestic violence.
Civilian courts are the competent courts that review these matters.
Generally, the legal framework of child custody in Egypt can be divided into two contexts: (i) international law; and (ii) domestic laws. From an international law standpoint, Egypt has ratified the following conventions:
African Union
African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
Signed: June 1999
Ratified: May 2001
Egypt maintained a reservation to Article 21(2) on the minimum age of marriage.
The withdrawal of this reservation was approved in 2015 after amendments were made to the Child Law.
Presidential Decision No. 75 of 2015
https://au.int/en/treaties/african-charter-rights-and-welfare-child
https://endcorporalpunishment.org/human-rights-law/regional-human-rights-instruments/acrwc/
United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Signed: February 1990
Ratified: July 1990
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en
On 31 July 2003, the government of Egypt informed the secretary-general that it had decided to withdraw its reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification in respect of Articles 20 and 21 of the convention. The reservation read as follows:
"Since The Islamic Shariah is one of the fundamental sources of legislation in Egyptian positive law and because the Shariah, in enjoining the provision of every means of protection and care for children by numerous ways and means, does not include among those ways and means the system of adoption existing in certain other bodies of positive law,
The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt expresses its reservation with respect to all the clauses and provisions relating to adoption in the said Convention, and in particular with respect to the provisions governing adoption in articles 20 and 21 of the Convention."
From a domestic standpoint, the Child Law and its amendments, most recently amended by Law No. 126 of 2008, is the main law regulating child custody.
The law does not explicitly stipulate rules that judges could follow to determine custody or visitation specifically for domestic violence cases. However, the law regulating civil affairs stipulates the general rules of custody (i.e., mother, mother of the mother, mother of the father, sisters of parents, prioritizing those of the mother first then those of the father, etc.).
The Personal Status Law also confirms this where it is established that the mother (generally) has custody until the children reach 15 years old. Then, the children are asked to choose whether they would like to continue with their mother or if they would like to go to the father.
If during the custody of the mother or father, the child is subject to domestic violence, the custody will be transferred to other custodians, as highlighted above.
Generally, nothing prohibits the other spouse from giving their testimony while the judge determines custody. However, customarily, the likelihood of the judge considering such testimony is relatively low.
Under the Civil Law, the landlord may not terminate or force a tenant to terminate a lease agreement for being a victim of domestic violence.
No. This is not regulated under the Civil Law.
This option is not tackled under the law. Nevertheless, technically, it is conceivable that in the event the abuser commits the crime in the leased property or does not settle the rental amount during their imprisonment, the proprietor may file a lawsuit claiming the termination of the lease agreement and the restoration of the leased property on the grounds of breaching the lease agreement.