Does the Amendment to Article (38) Redefine Justice and Protect Rights?

In an effort to modernize legislation and strike a balance between combating crime and safeguarding individual rights, the proposed amendment to Article (38) of the Criminal Procedure Code aims to address several issues related to the powers of judicial officers. The new text seeks to minimize the misuse of authority while upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law.

The Draft Text of Article (38) Proposed by Parliament:A judicial officer may order the arrest of the present accused if sufficient evidence exists against them in cases of flagrant delicto involving felonies or misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment for more than three months.

The Campaign’s Proposal for Article (38):A judicial officer who is at least a police officer may arrest the present suspect in cases of flagrant delicto involving felonies or misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment for more than six months if sufficient evidence exists against them.

Legal Analysis: What Does the Amendment Address?

Defining the Scope of Judicial Officers’ Authority: The current text grants the power of arrest to all judicial officers, regardless of their rank or qualifications while the proposed text limits this authority to police officers, ensuring a more specialized and reliable decision-making process.
Reducing Arbitrary Arrests: Raising the minimum penalty threshold for arrest from three months to six months reduces the likelihood of arbitrary arrests.
Protecting Individual Rights: Replacing the term "accused" with "suspect" introduces greater legal precision. "Accused" implies the existence of formal charges, whereas "suspect" is more appropriate for the preliminary arrest stage before referral to the prosecution.

Practical Example: How Does the Amendment Impact Practice?

Before the Amendment:
Any judicial officer, regardless of rank, could arrest an individual for a misdemeanor punishable by as little as three months' imprisonment.
After the Amendment:
Only police officers have the authority to arrest.
The anticipated penalty for the offense must be at least six months' imprisonment.
The term "suspect" is used, thereby reducing the criminal stigma associated with arrest before the case is referred to the prosecution.

Campaign “Towards a Fair Criminal Procedure Law”: Our Position on the Proposed Amendments

Since the House of Representatives began deliberating the draft Criminal Procedure Law, we have deemed it our national and constitutional duty to participate in this historic legislative process. Our engagement stems from our civic responsibility to contribute to public life and voice opinions that advance the national interest, as well

Amendment to Article (122) and New Safeguards for Achieving Justice and Protecting Defendants' Rights

The criminal justice system suffers from procedural gaps that contribute to prolonged investigations and the extended pretrial detention of defendants without a clear time limit. This results in severe violations of human rights. The impact of prolonged pretrial detention extends to the families of defendants, who bear the consequences of

Does the New Article (3) of the Criminal Procedure Law Ensure Justice for Heirs?

Recent amendments to Article (3) of the Criminal Procedure Law aim to guarantee justice for heirs following the death of the victim. Let us examine the proposed text and its implications: Proposed Text of Article (3) by the Parliament The criminal case cannot be initiated or any investigation undertaken except

The United Nations Calls for a Comprehensive Review of Egypt’s Draft Criminal Procedure Law to Ensure Compliance with Human Rights Standards

The United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights have submitted a joint memorandum to the Egyptian government regarding the new draft Criminal Procedure Law, as the House of Representatives continues its discussion of the contentious provisions within the proposed legislation. Below, the Arab Center for Law and Society Studies provides