Introduction

Witness testimony stands as one of the most pivotal forms of evidence in criminal proceedings, serving as both a fundamental tool of proof and a cornerstone of the right to defense. Testimony originates from an individual’s direct sensory perception of events that unfolded in their presence. In numerous cases, it serves as the sole instrument available to the defense in establishing the innocence of the defendant. A defense attorney, entrusted with safeguarding the rights of the defendant, often faces a formidable adversary in the prosecutorial authorities, who wield both power and authority. The prosecution acts on behalf of the state, and in many instances may deviate from the principles of justice, leading to the fabrication of charges and the suppression of exculpatory evidence—placing an undue burden on the justice system. In such circumstances, witness testimony emerges as the most crucial, and at times, the only means by which the defense can challenge wrongful accusations and establish the truth .

◾To read the full legal paper, click here.

Judicial control, as a procedural mechanism after a crime is committed, grants legally designated parties the authority to undertake grave investigative actions that impact citizens' freedoms and rights. Those entrusted with this authority may carry out various actions, including arresting suspects—even using force—detaining, and searching them—measures that infringe on individual rights such as freedom and mobility. Consequently, judicial control officers in democratic systems are bound by stringent safeguards and standards to minimize potential abuses of this power and to protect citizens’ interests.

To read the full legal paper

Introduction

The precautionary measures taken against the defendant inherently infringe upon his fundamental rights and freedoms, constituting a clear and blatant violation of a well-established legal principle enshrined in all Egyptian constitutions, relevant international conventions, and both international and national criminal jurisprudence—namely, the presumption of innocence. In addition to infringing on the other rights and freedoms of the defendant, these measures are intended to achieve key objectives during the investigation phase, such as safeguarding evidence, preventing witness tampering, uncovering the truth, and, in some cases, protecting the defendant himself.

Therefore, it is essential to strike a balance, using precise standards, between the personal rights and freedoms of the defendant and the interests of society. Strict rules must be established for each precautionary measure prescribed by law to ensure that one interest does not unjustly outweigh the other.

This research focuses on “freezing the defendant’s assets” as a precautionary measure which is authorized and regulated by several laws, including the Anti-Terrorism Law, the Drugs Law, the Anti-Human Trafficking Law, the Criminal Procedures Law, and others.

  *To read the full legal paper* 

Legal Paper

Conclusion:

Since the issuance of the 2014 Constitution in January 2014, travel bans imposed under Interior Minister Decision No. 54 of 2013 have been deemed illegal due to their lack of a legal basis, as affirmed by the Supreme Constitutional Court. Conversely, the travel ban procedures outlined in the Anti-Terrorism Law, the Terrorist Entities Regulation Law, and the amended Illicit Gains Law carry a clear suspicion of constitutional violation.

The travel ban provisions in the draft Criminal Procedures Law reveal the government’s determination to avoid establishing a time limit for the decision, a trend that has persisted since attempts to legalize this issue began in 2015. This approach reflects the broader philosophy of the draft, which prioritizes security over freedoms.

Legally, the formulation of the travel ban provisions has been influenced by procedures for preventing the disposal of funds, particularly regarding jurisdiction, procedural timelines, and related provisions. However, we believe this analogy is flawed due to the inherent differences between the two procedures. The ban on the disposal of funds pertains to a tangible asset—money—while the travel ban addresses a fundamental right: freedom of movement.

To read the full paper, please find the below link:

*To read the full legal paper*