Contracts Expression
While the Court in this case held that the suspension and shutdown decision had the legitimate aim of protecting national security, it disregarded the conclusion the 1st instance court reached that the true motive behind this decision was to “strategically 1) paralyse and disperse the demonstrations, 2) prevent them from communicating and expressing their peaceful demands, 3) cut off all means of rescue and access to ambulances to transfer those who were wounded or killed to the hospitals, and 4) enable the thugs to attack the demonstrators”. This conclusion was supported by various reports from human rights organisations and national commissions of inquiry.
Also, the Court erred by agreeing with the defendants’ argument that the suspension and shutdown order preserved national security as the facts proved otherwise since the alleged internal and external forces successfully managed to break into prisons and release their members and police stations were attacked and some were destroyed or set on fire which left no room but for the Egyptian armed forces to take over the protection of internal security. On the other hand, the peaceful demonstrators and even those who did not even leave their homes were the ones that suffered from that Order when such a full suspension and a blanket shutdown was coupled with the police withdrawal from the streets, surrendering its main obligation to maintain public order and safety.
The Egyptian economy suffered severe losses due to the suspension and shutdown order which was estimated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to be nearly $90 million.
In all respects, this decision is a clear shift away not only from the internationally recognised human rights standards and the justifiable limitations laid out by the different international human rights instruments but also from the fundamental human rights norms stipulated in the Egyptian Constitution.
The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.