Conditional Release (Parole) Under Egyptian Law

Many people—particularly the families of prisoners and pretrial detainees—find it difficult to distinguish between the various legal mechanisms through which prisoners may be released. Confusion often arises when official announcements are made regarding presidential pardons or the release of certain prisoners, especially with the frequent use of legal terms such as presidential pardon, conditional release (parole), and other related concepts. What, then, is the difference between these legal mechanisms for the release of convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees, and what are the legal rules and conditions governing each of them?

Through a series of legal articles entitled "Legal Mechanisms for the Release of Prisoners, Pardons of Sentences, and the Release of Pretrial Detainees," Ahmed Ragheb Law Firm aims to provide a simplified explanation of these different legal mechanisms, their governing rules, conditions, procedures, and the relevant Egyptian legal framework and judicial precedents. This first article addresses conditional release (parole) under Egyptian law.

Definition of Conditional Release and Its Historical Background

Historically, the concept of conditional release has been closely linked to the evolution of the philosophy of punishment. Traditionally, criminal punishment was intended solely to deter offenders and vindicate society's right to impose sanctions. Such objectives generally resulted in isolating convicted persons from society and, in some cases, permanently excluding them from it, without assuming that offenders could be rehabilitated or reintegrated.

As criminal justice policies evolved, however, rehabilitation and reintegration became recognized as fundamental objectives of criminal punishment. Against this backdrop, the concept of conditional release emerged during the eighteenth century as a legal mechanism based on a simple idea: society does not necessarily need offenders to serve the entirety of their prison sentences within correctional institutions. Instead, after serving a specified portion of the sentence and satisfying certain legal conditions, prisoners who demonstrate the capacity for rehabilitation may be given a second opportunity to reintegrate into society.

Conditional release may therefore be defined as a legal system that allows convicted prisoners to be released before the expiration of their sentences, subject to supervision and compliance with specified conditions throughout the remainder of the sentence. It is this conditional nature that gives the system its name. Conditional release applies only to persons serving final criminal judgments involving custodial sentences and does not apply to individuals held in pretrial detention.

Conditions Governing Conditional Release

Conditional release is regulated by the Egyptian Prison Regulation Law No. 396 of 1956, as amended. The principal conditions for eligibility are as follows:

• The prisoner must have served at least one-half of the imposed sentence.

• The prisoner must have fulfilled all financial obligations arising from the judgment being executed, unless payment is objectively impossible.

• The judgment being executed must be final and no longer subject to appeal.

• The prisoner must have demonstrated good conduct while serving the sentence.

• The prisoner's release must not pose a threat to public security.

• In all cases, the period actually served before conditional release may not be less than six months. In addition, persons sentenced to life imprisonment may not be conditionally released until they have served at least twenty years in prison.

•  

Which Convicted Persons Are Excluded from Conditional Release?

The Prison Regulation Law excludes certain categories of offenders from the conditional release system based on the nature of the crimes for which they were convicted. Accordingly, conditional release does not apply to persons convicted of:

• Offenses under the Assembly Law No. 10 of 1914.

• Drug offenses under the Anti-Narcotics Law No. 182 of 1960, with the exception of possession of narcotic substances for personal use as criminalized under Article 37 of that law.

• Money laundering offenses under the Anti-Money Laundering Law No. 80 of 2002.

• Terrorism offenses under Law No. 94 of 2015.

•  

Does Conditional Release Apply to Persons Convicted by Military Courts or Emergency State Security Courts?

Questions are sometimes raised regarding whether individuals convicted by military courts or Emergency State Security Courts may benefit from conditional release, particularly in light of the exceptional nature of these courts.

The issue is further complicated by Article 86 of the Internal Prison Regulations, which provides that prisoners convicted of offenses against the internal or external security of the State, as well as intentional homicide offenses, may not be granted conditional release without first obtaining the opinion of the competent security authorities.

In our view, however, there is no legal basis for excluding persons convicted by military courts or Emergency State Security Courts from benefiting from conditional release solely because of the court that issued the judgment. This conclusion rests on several considerations.

First, such an exclusion would contradict the legislative purpose underlying the conditional release system, namely the rehabilitation and reintegration of convicted persons.

Second, the Prison Regulation Law specifies exhaustively the categories of offenses excluded from conditional release. The classification depends on the nature of the offense, not on the type of court that rendered the conviction.

Finally, the Prison Regulation Law governs the treatment of prisoners serving sentences in Egyptian prisons regardless of the legal source of their convictions. For example, civilians convicted before military courts ordinarily serve their sentences in civilian prisons and remain subject to the provisions of the Prison Regulation Law. Accordingly, they should be eligible for conditional release whenever the statutory requirements are satisfied.

As for the argument that military and Emergency State Security Courts generally adjudicate serious offenses affecting public security, this concern is already addressed within the conditional release framework itself. One of the statutory requirements is that the prisoner's release must not pose a threat to public security. Whether such a threat exists is ultimately a matter of legal assessment and, where appropriate, judicial review.

Procedures for Conditional Release

Once a prisoner has served one-half of the sentence and fulfilled the remaining statutory conditions, the Assistant Minister of Interior responsible for the Prison Authority issues a decision granting conditional release in accordance with the prescribed legal procedures. This decision is based upon the recommendation of a specialized committee that reviews the files and circumstances of prisoners eligible for conditional release.

A prisoner whose application for conditional release is denied may submit a grievance to the competent committee within the Prison Authority, file a complaint with the Public Prosecutor, or initiate judicial proceedings to challenge the decision.

Revocation of Conditional Release and When It Becomes Final

Upon the issuance of a conditional release decision, the prisoner is released and must comply with the conditions imposed concerning residence, means of livelihood, and general good conduct. Any violation of these conditions may result in revocation of the conditional release and the prisoner's return to custody to serve the remainder of the sentence.

The Public Prosecution may also seek the revocation of conditional release in accordance with the law.

If the conditional release is not revoked before the date on which the sentence would otherwise have expired, the release becomes final. In the case of a prisoner serving a life sentence, conditional release becomes final after five years from the date of release, provided it has not been revoked during that period.

Ahmed Ragheb Law Firm welcomes legal inquiries and requests for legal consultation through the following contact channels:

Telephone: +20 2 2836 2686

Mobile: +20 10 1190 8976

Email: Ragheblegal@gmail.com

Website: http://ahmedragheb.org/

In light of the widespread use of freezing the assets of defendants in public funds and terrorism cases, preventing them from disposing of or managing them by investigative authorities, the law office of Ahmed Ragab for Legal Consultancy provides a legal overview for interested parties, lawyers, and stakeholders. This overview includes a look at these procedures, including the cases in which investigative authorities may freeze assets, the difference between preventing disposal and preventing management, the individuals whose assets may be frozen, the fate of frozen assets, and procedures for challenging these measures, as follows:

How has the Egyptian legislator regulated the freezing of assets as a precautionary measure?

The Egyptian legislator regulates the freezing of assets—whether by preventing disposal or preventing management—as part of precautionary measures to safeguard the financial rights of the state, which may consist of what the court may order the defendant to return or compensate. Article 208 bis (A) allows precautionary measures on the defendant’s assets. This approach is also reflected in Article 10 of Law No. 62 of 1975 on illicit gains, Law No. 8 of 2015 on terrorist entities, and Law No. 94 of 2015 on combating terrorism.

Article 10 of the Illicit Gains Law (Law No. 62 of 1975, amended in 2015) states:

If, upon examination, strong suspicions of illicit gains are found, the competent authority refers the papers to the People’s Assembly for the President, his deputies, the Prime Minister, his deputies, ministers, and their deputies to follow the procedures stipulated in Laws No. 247 of 1956 and 79 of 1958. For other members of the People’s Assembly, the provisions concerning them apply. For all others subject to this law, the authorities specified in items A, B, and C of Article 5 conduct the investigation. These authorities, when conducting the investigation, have all the powers granted to investigative authorities under the Criminal Procedure Law and may order the defendant or their spouse or minor children to refrain from disposing of all or part of their assets and take precautionary measures to enforce the order. They may also assign the Public Prosecution to investigate specific facts.

The order to prevent disposal must include the appointment of a manager for the frozen assets, measures to preserve their value, and adding returns to the account of the defendant or those covered by the order, after deducting actual management costs not exceeding 10% in favor of the Illicit Gains Authority.

The Illicit Gains Authority must present the order within 30 days of its issuance to the competent Criminal Court, which must set a hearing within the next 30 days, hear the defendant and relevant parties, and issue its judgment within 60 days to either confirm, amend, or cancel the order. If no judgment is issued within 120 days from the order’s issuance, the order is considered null and void.

These precautionary measures are temporary in nature and constitute an exception to general rights and legal principles, especially the presumption of innocence (Article 96 of the Constitution) and the constitutional protection of private property (Article 35 of the Constitution). Therefore, they must always be interpreted narrowly and within the legislative goal, which is to safeguard the state’s financial rights in case the defendant is ordered to return or compensate. Any other interpretation would transform these temporary measures into a penalty.

The legislator, in Articles 208 bis (A) and (B) and amendments made by Law No. 174 of 1998, took care to respect these principles. This followed the Supreme Constitutional Court ruling on 5/10/1996, which deemed parts of Article 208 bis (A) and (B) unconstitutional (Case No. 26 of Judicial Year 12).

What crimes allow precautionary measures on the defendant’s assets?

The legislator limited precautionary measures—preventing disposal or management of assets—to specific crimes due to their exceptional nature and impact on the presumption of innocence and protection of private property. Article 208 bis (A) specifies these crimes as:

• Crimes in Chapter Four, Book Two of the Penal Code, titled “Embezzlement of public funds, assault, and betrayal,” covering Articles 112–119.
• Crimes involving assets owned by the state, public institutions, or public legal entities.
• Crimes requiring the court to order, on its own, the return of funds, compensation, or restitution to the victim.
• Drug offenses and illicit gains.
• Terrorism offenses under Law No. 94 of 2015 or listing as a terrorist under Law No. 8 of 2015.

Who can have their assets frozen as a precautionary measure?

As a general rule, defendants in the crimes specified by law may have their assets frozen. As an exception, the assets of the defendant’s spouse or minor children may also be frozen if there is sufficient evidence that the assets originated from the crime and were transferred to them. In such cases, they must be included in the Public Prosecution request or the Prosecutor General’s order and presented to the competent criminal court.

Who has the authority to issue a freezing order?

The general rule is that asset freezing is decided by the competent criminal courts at the request of the Public Prosecution. As an exception, in urgent cases, the Prosecutor General may issue a temporary freezing order, which must then be presented to the court within a legally defined period to confirm, amend, or cancel it.

For example, under the Criminal Procedure Law, Article 208 bis (A), the Public Prosecution requests a freezing order from the competent criminal court. In urgent cases, the Prosecutor General may issue a temporary order, which must be presented to the court within seven days, or it is null and void.

Similarly, Law No. 8 of 2015 on terrorist entities allows the Prosecutor General to freeze assets of individuals or entities suspected of terrorist activity, and the order must be presented to the competent criminal court within one month for confirmation, amendment, or cancellation.

Law No. 94 of 2015 on combating terrorism confirmed that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law regarding asset freezing also apply to terrorism cases.

How can freezing orders be challenged?

Article 208 bis (B) provides a specific path for challenging freezing orders:

• Any person subject to a freezing or management ban may file a grievance with the competent criminal court after three months from the order date.
• If the grievance is rejected, they may submit a new grievance every three months.
• The grievance is filed in the court registry, and the court must set a hearing, notify the parties, and decide within 15 days.
• The court may, on its own or upon request, terminate, amend, or modify the order.

Freezing ends upon:

• A final decision of no grounds to prosecute,
• An acquittal, or
• Full execution of financial penalties or compensation.

Dr. Ahmed Fathi Sorour notes in “Al-Waseet fi Qanun Al-Ijraat Al-Jina’iya” that this grievance is a special judicial appeal, separate from standard appeals, and ensures impartiality by requiring a different chamber than the one that issued the freezing order.

What is the meaning of “freezing,” and what is the difference between preventing disposal and preventing management?

• Freezing assets is a legal term meaning temporarily suspending the owner’s ability to control or use the assets.
• Preventing disposal: The owner retains possession but cannot sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of the assets.
• Preventing management: Control of the assets is transferred to an appointed authority, which manages them under court-defined conditions.

What happens to frozen assets?

The main purpose of freezing is to preserve others’ rights and ensure the state can recover funds or compensation if the defendant is convicted.

• Under preventing disposal, the assets remain in the owner’s possession.
• Under preventing management, control is transferred to a court-appointed manager, who inventories and manages the assets and returns them after the precautionary period along with any profits earned.

Under Law No. 22 of 2018, the Committee for Asset Freezing, Management, and Disposal of Terrorist Groups and Individuals executes court judgments and inventories assets. It may request the court to dispose of the asset and transfer ownership to the state treasury.