The Maat Center, Maat Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, in cooperation and coordination with the State Organization for Penal Reform and the Amman Center for Human Rights Studies, held a workshop entitled (The death penalty ... and the right to life) on Wednesday 20 June 2007 in Cairo
It was attended by Ayman Aqil, Director of Maat Center, Dr. Nizam Assaf, Director of the Amman Center for Human Rights Studies, Professor Najad Al-Burai, President of the United Group, Dr. Ayman Salama, Professor of International Law, and Professor Muhammad Zare'i, Director of the Arab Criminal Organization.
More than 70 people participated in the workshop, representing human rights organizations, political activists, two parties, trade unionists, university professors, clerics, and official officials.
The workshop was divided into three sessions. The first session was for the opening and presentation of the main working papers
Dr. Nizam Assaf spoke in his speech and addressed the goal of the campaign that the International Organization for Criminal Reform adopts with the Amman Center for Human Rights Studies, which is the abolition of the death penalty and stressed that the campaign aims to gradually abolish the death penalty according to a general agreement between groups of society, taking into account the circumstances that Arab countries are going through. Especially in light of the clergy clinging to it.
Ayman Aqil gave his speech to Ricardo Lagos Escobar, President of Chile, where he said: -
“I cannot believe that in order for the state to defend life and punish the murderer, it must also commit murder. The death penalty is no less inhumane than the crime that prompts it. ”
As well as Mary Robinson, High Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations, she says.
“I sympathize with the families of the victims of murder and other crimes, but I do not accept that death is a justification for death.”

Says Judge Satcher of the Constitutional Court of South Africa 1995
“Everyone should have the right to life; Otherwise, the murderer will have achieved, in no way intended, a moral victory when he succeeds in making the state a murderer like him, thereby reducing society's hatred for the conscious elimination of humans.
Ayman Aqil, Director of Maat Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, presented in his paper the arguments in favor of retaining the death penalty and responding to it, and affirmed that those who support it believe that the death penalty achieves more restraint and terror than other punishments for fear of stripping the right to life:
In response, many criminologists assert that hardened criminals are not deterred by the gravity of the death penalty.
Also, some crimes are committed under the influence of emotion, emotion, or even chance. Therefore, the death penalty does not lead to a general deterrent that is stronger than other punishments such as imprisonment, for example.
He explained that it was said in support of the death penalty that it is compatible with serious crimes.
In response, the external circumstances and factors surrounding the offender's behavior when committing the crime differ from the circumstances surrounding the state when the punishment was imposed.
He said that the most important arguments advanced by the supporters of retaining the death penalty are the social necessity, community protection, and the necessity of eradicating the criminal from society for the safety of society.
He replied to that that with the development of scientific and research studies in criminology and punishment, it has been proven that the state has many other means alternative to the death penalty and through which it can achieve social defense and maintain the proper structure of society. Why is the state afraid of the criminal perpetrator who committed the most serious crimes as long as this perpetrator is It is under her control and grip?
In his presentation of the view of the supporters of abolishing the death penalty, he stressed that countries that have abolished the death penalty from their legislation are increasing continuously, and this indicates that supporters of abolishing the death penalty are gaining new supporters every day.
The opponents of the death penalty based their arguments on the ineffectiveness of this punishment in achieving utilitarian purposes and the contradiction of this punishment for moral considerations.
The death penalty is illegal because the state that robs the perpetrator of the right to life is not the one that gave him life.
This argument is due to the fact that the basis of the state’s right to punishment is the social contract whereby individuals concede part of their rights to the state in order to defend them and punish the offender. It is not possible for the individual to concede to the state his right to life in advance.
Also, some countries use this punishment to get rid of their political opponents.
He said supporters see the death penalty as unfair
Since it is an extremely harsh punishment, it has been scientifically proven that the personality of the person sentenced to death when carrying out the punishment is not his character when the crime is committed.
Likewise, this punishment is not progressive, depending on the gravity of the criminal act and the seriousness of the perpetrator.
It also does not lead to social reform and rehabilitation of the convict, and thus does not achieve society's goals of punishment.
The penalty through which the individual cannot rehabilitate again is an unfair punishment
If the purpose of the execution is to remove the perpetrator from society, this goal can be achieved by imposing another penalty, such as life imprisonment.
He said that the most important criticism directed at the death penalty is that the effects of this punishment cannot be repaired if, after its execution, the innocence of the convicted person is proven.
There is no doubt that judicial rulings are issued by a human being and he is subject to error or liable to base his judgment on false testimony or artificial evidence or other means. There is no doubt that the execution of a wild person generates a sense of injustice among the public. Aqeel, for example, cited the system of reviewing Egyptian legislation in accordance with Articles 441-453 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which give the right to the convicted person to reconsider the sentences issued for the sentence in certain cases. The accused was sentenced for a murder, then the plaintiff found the murderers alive.) If the death sentence is passed and executed, there is no way to save an innocent citizen.
He added that in this context also, there are other considerations that are outside the essence of the death penalty, which is the extent to which the indictment sentence corresponds to the truth as it actually occurred and not as it reached the court.
It is possible that the verdict has struck the truth and we cannot take away a person’s life just because of the possibility. And it has ended that the death penalty has become useless and it is time to abolish it or at least to stop working on it as a first stage until it is completely abolished and the demand for annulment is not in defense of the criminal offender who committed the crime But we do not want to treat the crime with a crime that may be more cruel to the perpetrator, and of course special deterrence will be achieved - as the perpetrator died - but the death penalty did not achieve general deterrence for the rest of the individuals.
Dr. Ayman Salameh, teacher of international law at the University of October 6, addressed the global development of abolishing punishment and emphasized that for quite some time now, jurists and legislators differed over whether to retain or abolish the death penalty, and this was reflected in various countries of the world, while many countries retained this punishment. However, we find other countries have now abolished them for all crimes, and other countries have abolished them except for exceptional crimes such as war crimes. In his paper he addressed this issue according to international treaties and conventions in the field of international human rights law, as well as the most important jurisprudential theories, whether Legal or philosophical, which was exposed to study this controversial issue
In light of the requirements of retaining the death penalty in the world, explaining that those calling for the retention of the death penalty consider that this is a protection of order and security in society, and that the punishment is only used against a group dangerous to society that threatens the security, but rather the survival of society itself, and that is why the legislator is keen to stipulate this punishment To deter the hardened criminals, and to ensure the rights of the victims and their families.
This theory is based on that whoever kills unjustly, his rights and children must be protected, and this entails punishing him unjust, otherwise life becomes chaos and people assault one another, and justice requires that whoever kills others unjustly and aggressively must be punished with murder as well so that there is equality and deterrence is achieved because the unjust killer When he knows his fate, if he kills someone else, he will stop killing and safety will prevail.
.
The arguments for maintaining the execution are based on the following considerations:
The death penalty fulfills important needs of society that cannot be met by other means, and whether it is carried out publicly or hidden from view behind prison walls. The argument used is that the death penalty is necessary at least temporarily for the good of society.
The death penalty is recognized as a unique method in its effectiveness and suitability to prevent and punish crime. So the positivist school called for its preservation as a valid means of achieving social defense, which is the goal of punishment. The necessity to save the healthy side of the social structure necessitates amputation and eradication of the sick side, and the death penalty is a tool to protect the public interest.
Some jurists have gone so far as to equate the application of this punishment as being a form of expropriation for public benefit that the state undertakes before the owner of the property.
The most common argument to justify the use of the death penalty is the deterrent factor, and the death penalty achieves the maximum amount of rebuke and terror in the soul for fear of stripping the right to life and thus it is the most effective means to achieve the goals of the state and maintain its social order.
.
Then there is the miracle argument, which is that the convict must be killed to ensure that he does not repeat the crime
In addition to the deterrence and miraculous arguments, the penalty argument confirms that certain criminals must be killed not to prevent the occurrence of the crime, but rather to satisfy the demands of justice. Execution is considered a reward for an evil act, and by killing the criminal, society shows its condemnation of his crime, and the conviction of this argument derives its roots from the extreme aversion that it provokes. Violent crimes among law-minded citizens. Public opinion demands and clings to it.
One of the reasons used to justify the death penalty is that it is more affordable to simply kill certain prisoners than to keep them in prison.
He also presented the requirements for abolishing the death penalty, according to the opinions of many international organizations as well as international law jurists. The death penalty constitutes a punishment of the utmost cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It is a punishment that cannot be reversed if executed and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to be a more effective deterrent against crime than other punishments.
Some argue that the death penalty is the governmental name for the word murder, so individuals kill each other, but governments and states punish individuals with the death penalty, and the demand to abolish execution and prevent killing both stems from the same reason, i.e. opposition to premeditated and premeditated killing by someone for someone And whether another government or a competent authority kills, it will never change the truth of the matter, which is that we are facing a case of premeditated murder. The death penalty is the ugliest, dirtiest and most absurd form of intentional killing because there is a political institution that decides before the people and announces in advance to colleagues and the maximum Degrees of indifference, coldness, and sense of truth about its decision to kill a person, and also announces the day and hour when it will do so.
.
And a presentation of the international guarantees that guarantee protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty
The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, in its Resolution No. 50/1984 of May 25, 1984, adopted a resolution that includes many guarantees that ensure the protection of the rights of individuals facing the death penalty, and this confirms the care and diligence that the United Nations has attached to the right to life as an original right, but rather a right of rights Basic humanity.
In its decision, the Council took into account many groups, groups and individuals that may face the imposition of the death penalty against them.
1. In countries where the death penalty has not been abolished, the death penalty may only be imposed for the most serious crimes, provided that it is understood that its scope should not exceed intentional crimes that lead to fatal or other extremely dangerous consequences.
2. The death penalty may not be imposed except in the case of a crime in which the law provides, at the time of its commission, the death penalty, provided that it is understood that if the rule of law becomes ruled after committing the crime by imposing a lighter penalty, the criminal benefits from that.
3. Persons who did not reach the age of eighteen at the time of committing the crime shall not be sentenced to death, nor shall the death sentence be enforced for pregnant women, newborn mothers, or persons who have become mentally ill.
4. The death penalty may only be imposed when the guilt of the accused person is based on clear and convincing evidence that leaves no room for any alternative explanation of the facts.
5. The death penalty may only be carried out according to a final judgment issued by a competent court after legal procedures that provide all possible guarantees to secure a fair trial, similar at least to the guarantees contained in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right of any person suspected of Committing a crime punishable by death or for which the accused has obtained adequate legal aid at all stages of the trial.
6. Everyone sentenced to death has the right to appeal to a higher court, and steps should be taken to make this appeal compulsory.
7. Everyone sentenced to death has the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Pardon or commutation may be granted in all cases of the death penalty.
The death penalty is not carried out until the appeal procedures or any procedures related to pardon or commutation have been decided. When the death penalty occurs, it is carried out in such a way that it results in only the minimum possible suffering. It also presented international agreements calling for the abolition of the death penalty as well as the Universal Declaration of Rights The human rights document issued by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also issued by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 have recently adopted international treaties under which states are obligated not to impose the death penalty.
Among the most important developments in recent years is the adoption of international treaties in which states commit themselves not to applying the death penalty. There are now four treaties of this type:
1- The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by 54 states. Eight other states have signed the Protocol, expressing their intention to become parties to it at a later date.
2- The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, which has been ratified by eight countries and signed by one other country in the Americas.
3- Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), which has been ratified by 44 European countries and signed by two others.
4- Protocol No. 13 annexed to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights), which has been ratified by 30 European countries and signed by 13 others.
Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights constitutes an agreement to abolish the death penalty in peacetime. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights provide for the complete abolition of the death penalty, but they allow states that wish to retain the death penalty in wartime as an exception to do so. Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights provides for the complete abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances
Dr. Ayman concluded his paper by saying that outside the framework of this disagreement between those who support the abolition of the death penalty and those who support them and support those who helped them, Amnesty International and those who support the retention of that punishment, this punishment will remain forever until God inherits the land and what is on it. The above - from: -
1- Some of the countries that abolished this punishment brought it back into effect and came into effect again from those countries, for example, Suriname, where a death sentence was carried out in 1982 after that penalty was also abolished: Benin - Dominique Guyana - Saint-Maurice, the first execution in 1984 Execution more than twenty-three years ago, and in the Gambia, in 1981 what is believed to be the first execution in the country since its independence in 1965, and other countries that have resumed executions during the past decade after a lapse of ten years or more are: Benin - Dominique - Guyana - St. Christopher and St. Louis.
2- The death penalty, at least from a civil point of view, represents a social and belief necessity, and my name is the meaning of justice. The German philosopher strikes, “it was a famous example, because he sees that if murders are committed on an island that all of its people decide to leave it permanently, justice requires the rise of its inhabitants. Implementing the death penalty for all the killers there before leaving it, in order to satisfy justice despite the end of the existence of society by leaving the island and thus the need to protect it will disappear.
Ahmadinejad Al-Burai, lawyer of cassation and head of the United Group, presented his paper dealing with the death penalty between reduction and abolition, and presented in the first section the death penalty in international and Egyptian legislation, which he considered one of the serious punishments that some believe is inconsistent with modern punitive principles. It also dealt with the theories that govern the determination of punishment, namely:
Traditional theories:
Individual Revenge Theory
Social revenge theory
Social contract theory
Compensation theory:
Utility theory
Absolute justice theory
Forensic defense theory:
Selection theory between moral justice and social benefit
Futuristic theories:
Moral Reform Theory
Theory Recommendations or Cautions
Social Conservation Theory

He pointed out that the main problem with the death penalty lies in the fact that it may come through hasty judicial procedures as in exceptional courts.
And the elimination of the death penalty arbitrarily and unjustly. In other words, the international community fights illegal political methods that use the death penalty in dictatorial countries to eliminate political competitors for the ruling power.
In his paper, he focused on the death penalty in Islamic legislation, explaining that the Islamic world is now standing in a comprehensive civilization gap with the current data, which can be attributed to two reasons, the first of which is terrorism, and what was left by the common vision of jihad, and the spread of Islam by the sword, and the second: the lack of freedoms, human rights and equality. Some traditional legislations with regard to the rights of expression (persecution of dissenters of opinion, setting the limit of apostasy and the law of the Hisbah), discrimination against people of other religions, and unequal treatment of women in some cases (inheritance - martyrdom - stewardship), within Islamic societies, are incompatible with what they are familiar with. Western civilization recently in the Declaration of Human Rights.
In light of the previous contemporary challenges, the traditional jurists stand trapped between the accelerating changes of the era on the one hand and the reverence they have become accustomed to in terms of reverence for the jurisprudence of previous jurists - which have shifted with the passage of time and the absence of the obligation of ijtihad or the reduction of its role by determining it not to be with a "text" - on the other hand, they resort To antagonize civilizational development by calling for civilizational apostasy and clashing with the West and atoning it. They forget that some of the Companions and Taabi'een, when they worked hard for their time, did not claim their possession of the truth, and that when Al-Shafi’i moved from Baghdad to Egypt - a spatial transfer only between two societies located at the same time - he was forced to Changing his ideology, as he wrote his new book "The Mother", so how do we now, more than a thousand years after the death of Al-Shafei?
At the same time, the advocates of enlightened Islam stand, raising the banner of ijtihad as an effective and effective solution to the elimination of the aforementioned challenges, calling for a separation between religion and religious understanding, and their call is based on the fact that ijtihad is from within the Sharia itself, that is, from within the text, correcting concepts, by real contemplation of the meanings and verses The Noble Qur’an and not relying on the old jurisprudential narratives and jurisprudence, and relying in return on the tolerance and generality of the Qur’anic verses and the breadth of ijtihad even with the presence of the text, overcoming the understanding of the purposes of legislation, and they are assured that only this is Islam valid for every time and place. Where they see that the theory of legislation in Islam is based on the provisions and legislation subject to legislative rules within the framework of a general and noble legislative purpose.
While others call for ijtihad from outside the text, by giving precedence to the mind over the text, and adhering to the causes of revelation, to link legislation with the circumstances of its time, if it conflicts with our circumstances in which we live. Citing previous incidents in which the work of the Qur’an text was stopped (such as the position of Umar, may God be pleased with him, when he stopped the end of theft during the famine and his stopping the arrow of their hearts after hardening the sting of the Muslims), confirming that the revelation came in response to the data of his time, so it came in response to certain questions of the type (they ask you about the new ones ... and they ask you about wine ...) and others, and in their opinion that if it had come down now it would fit the data of our era in which we live in, and he said (They ask you about globalization ... and they ask you about the clash of civilizations). It also presented the Islamic legislation for the death penalty: He explained that the jurists approved the punishment in four main cases, namely
• Legislation of retribution for premeditated murder.
• Anti-war legislation as punishment for bandits and corrupt people on earth.
• Legalization of apostasy in the punishment of an apostate Muslim.
• The legalization of stoning as punishment for a married Muslim.
And dealt with each of them in some detail:
1. Legislation of qisas in the penalty of premeditated murder:
The Holy Qur’an stipulates the punishment for murder in the legislation of retribution for intentional killing in two verses: However, the penalty is restricted to the pardon of the dead’s family and acceptance of blood money, “whoever is exempt from his brother something, then he should follow with a favor and pay him with kindness.” Accordingly, in the legal expression, “the criminal right is waived when the plaintiff waives the civil right” in this case.
2. Harbis legislation penalizing bandits and corrupt people on earth:
The Qur’an stipulates the punishment for murder in the legislation of what the jurists have called “the end of warfare” in the right of “those who fight God, the Messenger, and those who corrupt the land” and that in a surah, but this punishment is also restricted to repentance before they are arrested, al-Ma'idah (verse: 34) “except for those who repented before That you appreciate them ”. The jurists have recently expanded the definition of “corruption on earth” to apply it in cases of treason, indecent assault, and drug trafficking, but this interpretation remains an individual endeavor that is not conclusive.
3. Legalization of apostasy in the punishment of an apostate Muslim:
The Qur’an does not stipulate the death penalty for a “Muslim who has converted from his religion,” but rather stipulates religious freedom and the responsibility of those who convert from his religion to bear the effects of that in the hereafter. An example of this is the following: “And whoever among you abandons his religion and dies while he is an infidel, then those whose deeds in this world and the hereafter have been thwarted are those whose deeds are aborted, and those who are the owners of Hell will abide therein” (Al-Baqarah: 217). And the verse clearly states that the apostate remains alive until he dies naturally, and his account is postponed until the Day of Resurrection, and many others, such as “Those who believed, then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved, and then increased disbelief. God would not forgive them nor would He guide them a path” (An-Nisa: 137) ). “O you who believe. Whoever among you apostates from his religion, God will bring a people who love them and love him…” (Al-Ma`idah: 54). “Muhammad is nothing but a messenger before him, the messengers before him. If he dies or is killed, you will turn against your heels, and whoever turns against his heels will not harm God anything and God will reward the thankful (Al Imran: 144)). “Those who disbelieve after their faith and then increase their disbelief, their repentance will not be accepted, and those are the lost.” (Al-Imran: 90)… “Whoever changes disbelief with faith has lost the straight path” (Al-Baqarah: 108).
However, the various books of Islamic heritage go to killing those who convert from the religion of Islam, and their support in that is based on what was attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (may God’s prayers and peace be upon him) of the hadith that “Whoever has changed his religion, kill him.” Al-Bukhari relayed this hadith from a person named Ali bin Abdullah, who transmitted it from another person named Sufyan, who in turn quoted it from a third person named Ayyub, who transmitted it from a fourth person, Ikrimah, and then from Ali bin Abi Talib, may God bless his face, who transmitted it On the authority of a fifth person, Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him, who was recently transmitted by the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him. As for Al-Bayhaqi, he quoted this hadith in the Great Sunnah from a person named Abdullah Al-Hafiz, on the authority of another, Abu Al-Abbas Muhammad bin Yaqoub, on the authority of a third, Al-Rabeeh bin Suleiman, on the authority of a fourth, who is Al-Shafi’i, on the authority of a fifth, who is Ibn Uyaynah, on the authority of a sixth called Ayoub bin Abi Tamima On the authority of a seventh, he is Ikrimah, on the authority of the eighth, Ali, may God bless his face, on the ninth, he is Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him, and then on the tenth source, which is the Prophet, upon him be blessings and peace.
4. Legislation of stoning as punishment for a married Muslim:
The Qur’an also does not stipulate the punishment of “stoning” for a married Muslim. There is no punishment for adultery other than flogging in the Qur’an, and there is no punishment in the Qur’an for stoning an adulterer, even though the term stoning and its derivatives came in the Qur’an to show that the polytheists threaten the prophets and believers (Hood 91, Maryam 46, Al-Dukhan 20, Yes 18, Al-Kahf 20, Al-Shuara '116). The strict Quranic legislation describes the punishment for adultery - which is flogging - as (torment), and torture means that the perpetrator remains alive after him and does not die because of it, and in other words there is no place here for the penalty of stoning, which means death. The important thing is that the punishment for adultery is absolutely flogging and not stoning (so flog each one a hundred lashes, and do not take them with compassion in the religion of God, if you believe in God and the Last Day, and let a group of believers witness their torment) then the flogging is torment.
However, it was attributed to Umar bin Al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, as saying that there is a "abrogated" verse that speaks about the punishment of stoning.
(Beware that you perish from the verse of stoning. And by which my soul is in his hand, had it not been for people to say that Umar ibn al-Khattab added in the book of God, I would have written it: The sheikh and the sheikh if he committed adultery ... etc.), and the various books of Islamic heritage approve the penalty of stoning, as it came in Muwatta Malik, the narration of Muhammad bin Al-Hassan Al-Shaibani commented and investigated by Abd al-Wahhab Abd al-Latif under the heading “Chapter of Stoning” No. 693, the following hadith
“Malik told us, Yahya bin Saeed told us that he heard Saeed bin Al-Musayyib say: When Umar ibn al-Khattab was issued from Mina Anakh with the roof ... Then he came to Medina, and he sermoned the people, and he said: O people: You have enacted the laws and imposed the obligations for you and you left on the clear, and applauded With one of his hands on the other, except that you do not mislead people to the right and the left, then beware that you perish from any stoning, to say someone says: We do not find two edges in the Book of God, for the Messenger (PBUH) has stoned and stoned us, and that I, and who I myself is in his hand, had it not been for the people to say, life has increased Ibn al-Khattab in the book of God that she wrote: The sheikh and the sheikh, if they committed adultery, then stoned them at all, because I have read it. Saeed said: Dhu al-Hijjah did not slay until Umar was killed. !! Al-Shafei transmitted Malik’s narrations, and added another narration that is not mentioned in al-Shaibani’s account, stating that Umar was stoned in his caliphate by a wife who confessed to adultery, and al-Shafi’i concluded that the stoning was proven in the Qur’an and Sunnah and Omar’s action.
Mohamed Zaree, Director of the Arab Organization for Penal Reform, spoke about the previous efforts of the Egyptian organizations in discussing the case and stressed that it is a case that has a special sensitivity for the Egyptian society and demanded that building on what was previously mentioned and that the process of demanding the abolition of punishment be completed after a broad dialogue that includes all groups of society worse than what was done in the campaign. Anti-female circumcision.
Dr. Muhammad Salim Al-Awa sent a study on the Islamic criminal system, focusing on the limit of apostasy, in which he reviewed the meaning of apostasy, the Qur’anic verses that dealt with it and the noble prophetic hadiths, as well as its punishment, and concluded that the Holy Qur’an did not specify a worldly punishment for apostasy. He also demanded a distinction between individual and collective apostasy, explaining that apostasy. Collectively is a departure from the Islamic state in the form of deviating from religion, and here the state must address it to prevent the damages resulting from it. As for the individual response, it is a personal matter as long as it has not been announced and does not invite people to do as he did, so the state has no way to hold him accountable for his opinion besides trying him Or his punishment.
As for the apostate who announces his apostasy and invites people to apostasy, here the state must allow scholars to discuss and respond to his suspicions and give him the opportunity to return to religion. If the criminal system refuses to intervene here to hold him accountable for the crime of sedition Muslims for their religion, and this accountability takes place within the limits of the system of reinforcement or concealment. He pointed out that the Egyptian legislator in the penal code, Articles 312, 315, 317, and 326 had adopted this behavior and included penalties of imprisonment and fines, and at the conclusion of his paper he reviews a number of draft laws that were submitted to the Egyptian Parliament to provide for the punishment of the apostate by death and the reasons for not passing them
(The text of the paper is attached)
The second session
The participants were divided into three groups. Each group included different elements from the two parties, the trade unions, the clergy, politics, human rights, and scholars.
The discussion revolved around the arguments of both supporters and opponents of the death penalty and its usefulness in achieving the purposes of the death penalty.
The reports of the three workshops reflected the viewpoints of the participants, and some tried to link punishment with the right to life, and to value human life.
The committee’s first report emphasized the necessity of rationalizing the death penalty in general and suggested stopping it temporarily until the Egyptian penal code is amended and limiting its application to specific and narrow cases, such as the crime of premeditated murder. And the development of an article in the law provides for blood money as an alternative to punishment
While the second group saw the abolition of the penalty and the start of a campaign organized over two years to completely abolish it and replace it with penalties such as life imprisonment or exile, and it also demanded that it be stopped immediately for political crimes and opinion crimes and their removal from the exceptional judiciary
The dispute was sharp within the third committee, but the supporters of the punishment demanded sufficient guarantees for the accused at all stages of the trial and for a higher judicial committee to be formed to review the final sentences of death, and its opinion would be binding and include in its formation clerics while ensuring the independence of the judiciary completely.
The third session
In the third session, each rapporteur presented the results of the discussions and their directions, and a third dialogue was held. The participants confirmed that the death penalty did not achieve adequate deterrence or limit the commission of the crime. The speakers indicated that the global trend is moving towards working towards the abolition of the death penalty and that the number of countries that have abolished the death penalty has reached 128 countries, i.e. About half of the countries in the world and that there are some countries, despite the provision in their legislation on the death penalty, but they did not apply it in practice.
The participants emphasized that if the articles of the Egyptian Penal Code were removed from the implementation of that punishment and replaced by another punishment, it would be more deterrent, as the death penalty could not be corrected if the defendant's innocence was proven after the execution of the punishment.
The workshop ended with several recommendations that form the nucleus of the Egyptian coalition action plan against the death penalty in the coming period
The recommendations are as follows:
1- Work to abolish the death penalty for political crimes and crimes of opinion and limit it to the crime of premeditated murder.
2- Establishing sufficient guarantees to verify the commission of the crime and establish evidence.
3- Laying down adequate guarantees for the independence of the judiciary while making the opinion of the mufti mandatory for the court.
4- The abolition of all exceptional laws and courts that caused the execution of 106 people within ten years.
5- Expanding the blood money and pardon system for premeditated murder, codifying and stipulating it in the penal code.
6- Opening a wide dialogue between all classes of society, official and religious institutions, parties and trade unions about abolishing punishment in the future.
An Egyptian coalition against the death penalty was established.
After the meetings, the coalition issued a statement announcing its founding
The following is the text of the statement
Announcing the establishment of the Egyptian Coalition Against the Death Penalty
At the conclusion of the workshop held by the Maat Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Studies in cooperation and coordination with the State Organization for Criminal Reform and the Amman Center for Human Rights Studies under the title (Death Penalty ... and the Right to Life), I announced the establishment of the Egyptian Coalition Against the Death Penalty. The founders of the coalition, including civil society organizations, public figures, partisans and trade unions, emphasized that the goal of the coalition is to restrict the use of the death penalty to its narrowest limits, which is premeditated murder, premeditation, and work on and abolishing the articles contained in the Egyptian law that stipulate the application of the death penalty widely. Especially in crimes of a political nature and crimes of opinion.
Especially since the global trend is moving towards abolishing this penalty, or at least freezing it and replacing it with another punishment
The Maat Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Studies was chosen as coordinator of the coalition and its spokesman.
From here, the coalition invites all institutions and personalities and every citizen interested in defending the right to life to join the alliance (the membership form to join the alliance is attached, and please send the form by e-mail)
For workshop participants, please confirm joining the alliance by sending the joining form to add it to the list of founders
Alliance founders
• Maat Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Studies
• One World Foundation for Development and Care for Civil Society
• Human Development Association in Mansoura
• The Arab Foundation for the Support of Civil Society and Human Rights
• The Egyptian Center for Human Rights Programs