CAIRO, Jan 3 (MENA) – Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court ruled on Saturday that the criminalization of terrorism in all its forms is a constitutional obligation consistent with international treaties, rejecting claims that such legislation infringes judicial independence or interferes with the administration of justice.
In a ruling headed by Chief Justice Boulos Fahmy, the court dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of the Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Law, including articles related to the definition of terrorism, terrorist entities and terrorist acts.
The court said Egypt’s accession to and ratification of multiple international conventions on combating terrorism – including the Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, and the Arab Convention on Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing – obliges the state to align its domestic legislation with its international commitments.
These obligations, the court said, aim to safeguard security and public order for citizens and residents alike, while confronting terrorism in all its forms and tracking its sources of financing, in accordance with constitutional provisions that guarantee both national security and public rights and freedoms.
The court held that the Anti-Terrorism Law issued in 2015 complements, rather than repeals, existing Penal Code provisions and is consistent with international legal frameworks defining terrorism. It cited a 1994 UN General Assembly resolution stating that criminal acts intended to spread terror among the public for political or ideological purposes cannot be justified under any circumstances.
According to the ruling, the challenged provisions clearly define terrorism, terrorist organizations and terrorist crimes, establishing a coherent legal framework centered on the use of force, violence, threats or intimidation by unlawful entities to undermine public order, endanger societal security or harm state interests.
The court said criminalizing such acts serves a pressing social necessity, including protecting public order, constitutional institutions, public facilities and national resources, and shielding civilians from intimidation and violence. It found that the provisions target specific acts producing tangible harm or posing concrete risks, without infringing constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.
The court also ruled that the penalties prescribed by the contested articles are proportionate to the gravity of the crimes and do not restrict judges’ discretion in determining sentences within legally defined ranges. As a result, it said the provisions do not violate constitutional guarantees of judicial independence.
The ruling concluded that the contested articles comply with constitutional standards governing criminal punishment, rejecting claims that they breach provisions related to the rule of law, personal liberty or the independence of the judiciary.
(MENA)
