OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON FREEDOM
OF RELIGION OR BELIEF
Submitted by the European Centre for Law and Justice, an international non-profit law firm with
Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC,
on behalf of
Mr. Mohammed Bishoy HEGAZY
The Arab Republic of Egypt
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Does the incident involve an individual or a group?
The case involves an individual, Mr. Mohammed Hegazy and his family.
If it involves a religious or belief group please state the number of people involved and the denomination of the group.
Other than Mr. Hegazy, this case represents a general problem all Egyptian converts from Islam are facing. This case affects every Egyptian convert who leaves Islam and converts to another religion and does not want to be officially considered by the State as a Muslim. Therefore, it indirectly involves all converts from Islam who seek the right to choose their religious affiliation, which must be protected by the Egyptian government. However, this case does not involve non-Muslims (mostly Jews and Christians) who convert to Islam because Egypt protects their right to convert to Islam.
Country in which the incident took place: Egypt
Nationality of the victims:
2. IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS CONCERNED
Family name: HEGAZY
First name: Mohammed. His Christian name is Bishoy, which Egyptian authorities do not recognise. Denomination of his/her religion or belief: Christian (convert from Islam )•
Place of residence or origin: Mr. Hegazy was born in Port Said in 1982 . Mr. Hegazy and his family are currently in hiding due to numerous death threats made against them.
Family name: HEGAZY- KAMEL
First name: Om Hashim. Her Christian name is Katarina, which Egyptian authorities do not recognise. Denomination of his/her religion or belief: Christian (convert from Islam).
Place of residence or origin: Egypt
Family name: HEGAZY
First name: Miriam
Denomination of his/her religion or belief: Christian
Place of residence or origin: Miriam was born while the family was in hiding. Age: 2
3. INFORMATION REGARDING THE VIOLATION
3.1. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Mr. Hegazy, whose case and plight have gained international attention, is the first Egyptian convert from Islam to request legal recognition of his conversion in Egypt’. Mr. Hegazy was born in 1982 and converted to Christianity in 1998 after a period of intensive study of religion2. Mr. Hegazy decided to change his religious beliefs because he believed that “Islam wasn’t promoting love as Christianity did”3.
Shortly after Mr. Hegazy’s conversion to Christianity, Egyptian police tortured him for three days and harassed him several times thereafter4. In 2001, he was arrested for publishing a book of poems critical of the Egyptian state security polices. In 2002, he was arrested and held for ten weeks in conditions similar to a “concentration camp”6.
In early 2007, Mr. Hegazy attempted to register his change of religion with the Egyptian Interior Ministry, but Ministry officials rejected his request7. On 2 August 2007, Mr. Hegazy filed a case requesting official recognition of his conversion and to have the details on his identity card changed to reflect his new religious beliefss. Mr. Hegazy chose to file suit because he and his wife were expecting a child, who they would be legally required to raise as a Muslim unless they officially converted from Islam to Christianity9, Mr. Hegazy and his wife wanted their child to be born a Christian, from Christian parents, so that their child could have a Christian name, receive a Christian education, and marry in a church1°. Mr. Hegazy stated, “I think it is my natural right, to embrace the religion I believe and not to have  a double personality for me as well as for my wife and my expected baby”. Mr. Hegazy also stated that he brought the suit to establish a precedent upon which other Christian converts could rely12.
When Mr. Hegazy filed his case, two academics from Al-Azhar University demanded his execution, and the minister for religious endowments publicly affirmed the legality of executing Muslims who convert to Christianity13. However, in an interview with the Washington Post, Grand Mufti of Egypt Mr. Ali Gomaa stated that conversion from Islam, while sinful, is a permissible act that should not be subject to temporal punishment 14 (though Gomaa’s office later issued a clarification or partial retraction of that statement by explaining that because apostasy was subversive, it did merit punishment15).
Mr. Hegazy’s attorney received death threats from various sources including the Egyptian State Security force16. Mr. Hegazy’s first lawyer, Mr. Mamdouh Nakhla, of the Kalema Center for Human Rights, originally filed Mr. Hegazy’s petition with the Egyptian courts 17. Due to intense public pressure and threats, Mr. Nakhla abandoned his representation of Mr. Hegazy18. Additionally, in retaliation against Mr. Hegazy’s lawsuit, a number of Muslim clerics filed a court petition with the Egyptian courts against his first lawyer on charges of “causing sectarian strife”19.
On 8 August 2007, Mr. Hegazy’s second lawyer, Dr. Adel Fawzy Faltas of the Middle East Christian Association, was arrested by the Egyptian police along with a colleague after conducting a high-profile online chat session with Mr. Hegazy20. The two were held without charge and had their detention renewed on 21 August 200721. An Egyptian prosecutor considered charging Mr. Faltas with a number of offenses, including converting Muslims to Christianity, destroying the reputation of Egypt, and insulting Islam22. Mr. Hegazy was to be represented by a third lawyer, Mr. Ramses Raouf el-Nagar, but he withdrew, citing Hegazy’s failure to provide certain court documents23. Currently, Mr. Hegazy is represented in Egypt by Mr. Ashraf Edward, in conjunction with four other attorneys.
Mr. Hegazy was forced into hiding after extremists surrounded his former house for several days and set fire to his neighbour’s residence, killing the female occupant (who was his wife’s best friend) 4. At a hearing on 15 January 2008, lawyers filed a complaint against the government, arguing on constitutional grounds against criminalising apostasy25. Another group of attorneys attempted to attack Mr. Hegazy’s attorneys, who managed to escape26. On 29 January 2008, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled against Mr. Hegazy27. The court based its ruling on Article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution and cited Sharia law, stating that “monotheistic religions were sent by God in chronological order” and therefore one cannot convert to “an older rel igion”28. The court also reasoned that according to Sharia, Islam is the final and most complete religion; therefore Muslims already practice full freedom of religion and cannot convert to older religions such as Christianity or Judaism29. Mr. Hegazy and his family remain in hiding, and are unable to leave the country, having been denied the necessary passports3°.
Katarina Hegazy was also born a Muslim and converted to Christianity several years before she met her husband, Mr. Hegazy. Like him, her status as a Christian convert is not legally acknowledged by Egypt, effectively denying her freedom to change, manifest, and register her religion, and denying her parental right to have her daughter receive a Christian education. Mrs. Hegazy had also planned to apply to have her religious status amended on her identification card, but the family was forced into hiding before she could apply. Furthermore, there were frightening reports of the Egyptian police torturing other women who had converted from Islam to Christianity31. In addition to being denied freedom of religion and the related rights to register her chosen religion and have her child receive an education consistent with her Christian faith, Mrs. Hegazy and her daughter, as females, will be subject to pressure to comply with state-approved sex roles derived from a religion that is not their own because women’s rights and social roles in Egypt are interpreted under Islamic or Sharia law, according to the Egyptian Constitution32.
A recent December 2009 research study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, entitled, “Global Restrictions on Religion”, supports the applicants’ allegations that Egypt imposes a “Very High” level of governmental restriction on religion, ranking fifth in the world in that regard, exceeded only by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan, and China33.
The Egyptian Government has actively restricted the freedom to adopt the religion of one’s own choice by refusing to allow Muslims who convert to another religion to change their religious affiliation on their national identity cards. The United Nations must ensure that Egypt respects the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion which is enshrined in numerous international human rights instruments.
3.2. CURRENT EGYPTIAN LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Egypt’s Civil Status Law Allows Change of Religious Affiliation on Identification Documents, but This Law is Applied Discriminatorily in Contradiction with the Egyptian Constitution and International Human Rights Norms
Egyptian civil law does not prohibit religious conversion34. However, in practice, conversion from Islam to other religions is not allowed35. Conversion is a legal matter which must be accomplished by changing a person’s religious status as legally documented on his or her national identification card (“ID card”)36. In Egypt, ID cards are required for numerous important activities, including registering children for school, opening a bank account, or establishing a business37. Religious affiliation on the ID cards is also important because “family courts apply religious laws . . . in personal status matters, and a person’s religious identity determines under which court’s jurisdiction he or she would fall in such matters” 38. Furthermore, in case of schooling, religious affiliation as reflected on one’s ID card, determines which religious instruction one’s child receives39. Article 48 of the Egyptian Civil Status Law 143 of 1994 requires all citizens, who are sixteen or older carry the ID care. Not presenting the ID card upon a request by a law enforcement officer is punishable by fine of up to LE 200 (US$35)41.
Article 47(2) of the Civil Status Law allows a citizen to change his religious affiliation on the ID card “without requiring the approval of the Ministry of Interior’s Civil Status Department” if it is authorised by a “‘competent body’ (iihat al-ikhtisas)”42. However, the Civil Status Department, which issues the ID cards, “obstruct[s] and discriminate[s] against persons who have converted from Islam to Christianity by refusing, to make the change in official records or to provide vital documents reflecting the requested change” 3. A Coptic lawyer, Naguib Gabriel, states that “[t]hose who convert to Islam only have to produce a formal certificate of conversion from Al-Azhar [Egypt’s official Islamic establishment] . [b]ut for those coming back to Christianity, a certificate from the Coptic Patriarchate is not enough. They are also required to request a court verdict”44.
Thus, in practice, legal allowance or prohibition of conversions or change of religious affiliation on ID cards varies according to whether the individual is converting to or from Islam, and whether the convert was Muslim by birth. Non-Muslims are not prohibited from converting to Islam45. Muslim converts can also revert back to their previous religions46. But individuals born as Muslims are prohibited from converting to Christianity47 or changing their religious affiliation on their identification documents, despite constitutional guarantees of freedom of belief48 and opinion49. Egypt’s double standard, therefore, contravenes international norms and its representatives’ own statements5°. Egypt’s discrimination against Mr. Hegazy is illegal and must stop.
B. Egyptian Courts Refusing to Recognise Conversion from Islam to Christianity
Unfortunately, Mr. Hegazy’s situation is not an isolated case. In August 2008, Mr. Maher ElGohary filed a lawsuit seeking to amend his State identification documents to reflect his Christian name and affiliations’. On 13 June 2009, the Administrative Court, in a historic decision, ruled against Mr. El-Gohary, holding that his claim was contrary to Sharia law and posed a threat to the public order52. This decision showed that Sharia law supersedes Articles 40 and 46 of Egypt’s Constitution and international law within Egypt’s legal system. In addition, the Court created a number of new obstacles to prevent such religious modification of the identification card53.
Since filing the lawsuit, El-Gohary has been called an apostate and had several fatwas calling for “spilling his blood” issued against him54. On 17 September 2009, he was prevented from leaving the country and was detained at Cairo Airports. His passport has been confiscated and he was advised that he is barred from traveling56. In an aired interview with the Coptic News Bulletin, Mr. El-Gohary said, “[t]he authorities are trying to pressure us [him and his daughter] to convert back to Islam, but this will never happen, even if we have to live on the streets. We love our Lord Jesus, and we have left Islam for good”57
The Hegazys, like the El-Goharys and other Egyptians who have attempted to officially convert from Islam to another religion, are only seeking to exercise their fundamental right to change religious affiliations. Their case presents an opportunity to reaffirm that all nations, including Egypt, must be held to the highest standard in respecting the exercise of fundamental human rights.
3.3. VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Relevant alleged violations of the applicants’ human rights, along with corresponding international legal standards, are set out below under consecutive sections that follow the categories formulated by the Special Rapporteur in her framework for communications.
Before setting out the alleged violations, it is helpful to enumerate briefly some general international standards and instruments by which the subject state is bound and which are relevant to the Special Rapporteur’s mandate to examine incidents and governmental acts that are incompatible with the universal international human right to freedom of religion or belief.
The Special Rapporteur has stated that the question of religious conversion or change of religion is at the “very heart of the mandate on freedom of religion or belief set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), which Egypt signed in 1967 and ratified in 198259. In agreeing to the provisions of the ICCPR, Egypt made the following reservation: “taking into consideration the provisions of the Islamic Sharia and the fact that they do not conflict with the text annexed to the instrument … we accept, support and ratify it”60. This broad, formal reservation to its responsibility to enforce those provisions or human rights that may conflict with Sharia law or with virtually any extremist interpretations of such law would appear to vitiate the intent and purpose of the treaty, or to provide an avenue for the wholesale evasion of Egypt’s obligations thereunder as in the present case. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which Egypt has ratified, provides, in Article 19, that a State should not be permitted to formulate a reservation when, among other things, “the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty”61.
Islamic Sharia may conflict with the ICCPR rights, in that Article 18 of the ICCPR protects the right to change one’s religion, but the same right may not necessarily be protected under Islamic Sharia. In practice, Egypt has done exactly the same—prohibited Mr. Hegazy from changing his religion, thus deviating from the object and purpose of the treaty.
Other instruments which can apply to the Special Rapporteur’s interventions and which also have some application to this case, are: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”); 62 the Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”); 63 the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”);64 and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”)65. Egypt has ratified all of these treaties66, its ratification of the ICESCR being subject to the same formal reservation it has entered to the ICCPR as quoted above67. Having completed an overview of relevant international instruments, we now proceed to outline specific, alleged violations by the Arab Republic of Egypt.
A. Egypt’s Conversion Policy Violates Religious Freedom Rights Enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
r.Freedom to Adopt, Change, or Renounce, a Religion or Belief
Article 18 of the ICCPR requires that Member States provide their citizens “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”, which includes the “freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of [one’s] own choice”68. The Special Rapporteur has stated that the right to change one’s religion has an “absolute character” and is “not subject to any limitation whatsoever”69. Furthermore, the Human Rights Committee states that “the freedom to ‘have or to adopt’ a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another”7°.
Egypt is legally bound to provide applicants such rights through legislative, judicial, or administrative means. And, though it has incorporated a de jure right to freedom of belief, religion, or opinion in Articles 46 and 47 of its Egypt’s Constitution, Article 2 of that same Constitution, which states that all Constitutional provisions shall be subject to and interpreted in accord with Sharia law71
, is a ploy, akin to the Sharia-based reservation to the ICCPR, to enable Egypt to evade de facto enforcement of these rights it has ostensibly promised to protect and preserve. It has been used as a means to illegally deny the right of Egyptians, who are born Muslim, to convert to another religion, as exemplified by the January 29, 2008 ruling of Egypt’s Supreme Administrative Court that denied the right of applicants to convert from Islam to Christianity, holding that “monotheistic religions were sent by God in Chronological order” and that therefore one cannot convert to “an older religion”72. This ruling makes a mockery of the human rights Egypt has agreed to protect, and flagrantly, transparently derogates the Egyptian Constitution and international law.
ii.Freedom to Manifest a Religion or Belief
Right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion also includes freedom “to manifest [one’s] religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching”73. Human Rights Council resolution 6/37 of December 2007 urges States to “review … existing registration practices in order to ensure the right of all persons to manifest their religion . . . .”74 Once again, while the Egyptian law, on its face, appears to comply with this mandate through Law 143/1994 which allows for amending religious status on I.D. cards “on demonstration of proof from appropriate authorities,”75 it is a practically impossible for Egyptians born Muslims to legally convert and obtain the required authoritative proof, though amended registrations of religion are, by contrast, permitted for those who convert from other faiths to Islam.
Right to Freedom of Religion Must be Free of Coercion
Article 18 does not allow State Parties to subject any of their citizens to “coercion which would impair [their] freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of [their] choice”76. It bars State Parties from using any coercion, whether a threat of physical force or penal sanctions, that compels adherence to or conversion from a belief77. Even the “[p]olicies or practices having the same intention or effect” of restricting the right to change religion are “inconsistent” with Article 1878. Furthermore, according to the Special Rapporteur, “[a]dministrative requirements can also make it difficult to change one’s religion or belief”, as “in a number of cases converts have found it impossible to obtain identity cards after having changed their religion”, for “[w]here conversion is not actually prohibited by law, converts can [still] be harassed or threatened by State and religious officials”79.
Here, the Egyptian authorities have used all forms of coercion against Mr. Hegazy that are prohibited by Article 18 of the ICCPR. Egyptian authorities have arrested Mr. Hegazy several times for converting to Christianity and have tortured him. Authorities have not allowed him to manifest his religion by changing his religious affiliation on his identification documents, though permitted under Egyptian law, which has caused coercion by force and physical harm.
The Right of Parents to Ensure the Religious and Moral Education of Their Children
Egypt, by denying the applicant’s request to amend his religious status on his I.D. card, in effect, further improperly denied both Mr. Hegazy and his wife the associated right of parents provided under ICCPR Article 18(4) “to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions”80. For, in Egypt, the subject ID cards are required to enroll a child in school, and children are required to be educated in the Islamic faith as long as their father is officially registered as Muslim81.
Discrimination on the Basis of Religion or Belief/Inter-Religious Discrimination/Tolerance
The Arab Republic of Egypt has further, through its officials, engaged in unlawful discrimination against the applicants based on their religious beliefs. Article 2 of the ICCPR clearly requires State Parties to ensure all citizens the rights and freedoms therein without discrimination or distinction on the basis of religion82.
However, regardless of this explicit requirement, the applicants have been denied83, due to their religion, not only Article 18 rights to adopt, change, manifest and register their religion and to the educate their child in their faith84. They have been denied equal protection and freedom of movement85. They have been denied passports that would allow them to leave the country to escape threats of death, persecution, or torture86.
B. Egypt’s Recognition of Islam as the State Religion Should Not Be a Pretext to Violate Rights of Non-Muslims
Article 46 of the Egyptian Constitution guarantees freedom of religious belief and religious exereise,87 and Article 47 guarantees freedom of opinion and expression88. But Article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution states that “the principle source of legislation is Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia)”89. The Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court9° (“SCC”) has interpreted Article 2 to mean that no legislation can violate rules of the Sharia, the meaning and immutability of which has been definitively established91. For the purposes of Article 2, the SCC has defined Sharia as all laws which conform to broad Qur’anic legal principles which have historically been accepted by all Muslim jurists92. The SCC applies Article 2 through a two step analysis, which evaluates (1) whether any given law is consistent with applicable rules of Islamic Sharia, and (2) whether the law advances the goals of the Sharia93. As a result of Article 2, Egypt’s legal system is ostensibly a “constitutional theocracy” in which all laws are subject to the principles of Sharia94.
Although Egypt’s Constitution declares Islam as the State religion and Sharia law as the principal source of legislation, the Human Rights Committee does not expect this to result in “any impairment” of any of the rights enumerated in the ICCPR95. In fact, the Committee states that the ICCPR requires State Parties to “safeguard against infringement of the rights of religious minorities and of other religious groups” as guaranteed by Articles 18 and 2796. The Committee further states that these articles not only prohibit violence against and persecution of religious minorities, but they also prohibit any discrimination by the State Parties against religious groups97. By allowing non-Muslims to easily convert to Islam but not vice versa, Egypt has clearly violated its obligations under the ICCPR. The fact that Islam is treated as an official ideology in the Egyptian Constitution, statutes, proclamations, and actual practice must not result in impairment of the rights of non-Muslims who are also protected by the ICCPR98.
Any interpretation of Sharia law that allows for forced conversions and subjects voluntary religious converts to discrimination, arrest, violence, or death is inconsistent with international human rights standards. The United Nations must send a clear message that there is no Sharia exception to the universal duty to uphold basic human rights99. The international community must not tolerate or ignore either of these global problems, for both forced religious conversions and nations refusing to recognise voluntary conversions contravene widespread international norms.
Mr. Hegazy’s right to choose and manifest his religion is protected by the ICCPR. Egypt must guarantee that right as a State Party to the ICCPR as well as a Member State of the United Nations. Although Egypt has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, this does not, of course, preclude the Special Rapporteur from exercising her mandate in urging Egypt to honor its legal obligation under Articlel8 of the ICCPR,
C. Vulnerable Groups
Egypt’s ratification of the CEDAWm° binds it to uphold, without discrimination based on sex or gender, the human and legal rights of the female applicantsm . Once again, while Egypt wishes to give the appearance, by ratification of the CEDAW, that it is committed to equality of rights for women, it makes the rights of female Egyptians, no matter what their religion, subject to Islamic Sharia
Article 11 of Egypt’s Constitution claims that woman is considered “equal to man in the political, social, cultural and economic spheres,” but only when and if such equality is “without detriment to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia)”1°3. Yet Sharia law is often interpreted to assign woman an unequal, subordinate position in the law, society, and the family and to ascribe to her gender roles that severely limit her freedom and opportunity. Thus, making women’s rights subject to those gender-discriminatory interpretations of Sharia law (traditionally used to prop-up patriarchal practices that harm women) is a naked violation of Egypt’s obligation under the CEDAW as well as a violation of the rights of Katarina and Miriam 1-legazy not only to the freedom to live in accord with their Christian belief in a natural right to human equality, but their right to gender equality under international law,
Egypt, as a State Party to the CRCI°4, is bound under Article 14(1) to protect the right of the minor, girl-child, applicant, Miriam Hegazy, to freedom of religion or belief and her right to manifest her religionms. Egypt is also bound by the CRC to respect the right of Miriam’s parents’ to provide her direction in the exercise of such rights, for example by insuring that she has the freedom to seek an education consistent with her religious beliefs106. Egypt has failed to honor these obligations under the CRC and has thus failed to honor the Article 14 rights of Miriam Hegazy and her parents.
D. Statement by Ambassador Hisham Badr, Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations
Ambassador Hisham Badr, Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations, presently serves as the Vice President and Rapporteur on the United Nations Human Rights Councill07, of which Egypt has been a member state since 2007108. Mr. Hisham Badr decries that freedom of expression has been used to promote “racial and religious stereotyping” and “incitement to racial and religious hatred”I°9. Yet racial and religious stereotyping continues in his own country in cases of Christians like Mr. Hegazy, who is currently being discriminated against and stereotyped because of his specific faith. Ambassador Badr should be urged to monitor this discrimination and provide adequate remedy for violations of the rights of the Hegazys.
The refusal of the Egyptian Government to recognise the conversion of Muslim-born individuals to another religion has serious, negative consequences for religious converts like Mr. Hegazy, The Special Rapporteur’s office has acknowledged receipt of numerous reports of situations, like that of Mr. Hegazy and his family, in which the right of individuals to have or adopt a religion of their choice has been violated 10. This case involves exactly the same right: Mr. Hegazy’s right to officially change his religion. Based upon the above facts and law, we make urgent appeal, on behalf of the Hegazy family, to the Special Rapporteur to intervene and assist them in securing the above rights they are being denied, foremost the right to legally change religion. We also implore the Special Rapporteur to intervene in the interim, if possible, to seek emergency protection for the claimants, from persistent threats of death until their basic 4. STEPS TAKEN BY
THE VICTIM AND HIS FAMILY:
On 4 August 2007, Mr. Hegazy filed a lawsuit (# 35647) to challenge the decision of the Civic Centre banning him from changing his religion from Islam to Christianity and his name on his identity card.
On 29 January 2008, the court declined the validity of the case based on administrative
motives. Furthermore, the same court ruled that Mr. Hegazy had to pay the court expenses.
An appeal was presented immediately. The appeal is still pending before the Supreme
The court ruling indicated that the case was not accepted in its structure. This allowed
Mr. Hegazy to initiate another case dated 30 May 2009, which is still pending.
The case is scheduled for a hearing on 16 February 2010.
Were any other steps taken? No. Steps taken by the authorities: None.
5. IDENTITY OF THE INSTITUTION SUBMITTING THIS APPLICATION
EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR LAW AND JUSTICE (ECLJ) Represented by its Director General, Dr. Gregor PUPPINCK
Contact number and address:
EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR LAW AND JUSTICE 4, Quai Koch
67000 Strasbourg, France
Phone : + 33 (0)3 88 24 94 40
Fax : + 33 (0)3 88 24 94 47
Status: Non-Governmental Organisation with special Consultative Status with ECOSOC. Do you act with knowledge and/or on behalf of the victims? I act on behalf of the victims. Please state whether you want your identity to be kept confidential: No.
6. DOCUMENTS IN ANNEX:
Matrimonial contract of Mr. Hegazy.
Birth certificate of Mr. Hegazy.
Copy of Mr. Hegazy’s identity card.
Copy of Mrs. Hegazy’s identity card.
Back copy of Mr. Hegazy’s identity card.
Back copy of Mrs. Hegazy’s identity card.
Birth certificate of Mrs. Hegazy.
Court first decision 29/01/08 (in Arabic).
Appeal # L 41935 (in Arabic).
rights and safety can be secured.
Administrative Court decision in the cases numbers 53717 ( 62) and 22566 ( ’63), Maher Ahmad Al Muatasembellah El-Gowhary v. The President of the Arab Republic of Egypt.
Supreme Court decision in the Bahai’s case (in Arabic).
Power of attorney.
Respectfully submitted on January 22-, 2010.
Signatures o the Representatives