How does the state address sectarian violence?

44. It is clear that at this point the state does not have a plan for confronting the growing sectarian violence in the country or addressing sectarian tensions, primarily because, until recently, the state strenuously denied the very existence of violence or tension. Nothing is more indicative of this than statements made by the Governor of Minya to al-Watani al-Youm, the mouthpiece of the ruling National Democratic Party, on 24 November 2009. Speaking to the paper, he denied any instances of sectarian violence in his governorate, which is, in fact, the site of the largest percentage of cases in Egypt, as noted above.

45. In the period under review, the state viewed sectarian violence as purely an issue of security. As such, it wholly failed to deal with the problem, viewing it as a series of isolated events in the absence of any comprehensive understanding of its causes, manifestations or solutions. It falls to the Ministry of Interior, specifically the State Security Investigations, to deal with each incident, and we can briefly describe the ministry’s interventions as inadequate, violent, shortsighted and, in most cases, illegal. Its actions are always intended to impose calm by force: it is either reconciliation and quiet or arrest and at times the collective punishment of the victims themselves.

46. In a very few cases, non-security, executive officials, such as governors, have intervened to address incidents of sectarian violence in their governorates, but these interventions are always weak and ineffective. As for the remainder of state ministries, they normally distance themselves from sectarian violence and tension, as if it has nothing to do with them, and leave it to security to deal with all parties involved, from the victims and perpetrators to their relatives, area notables and the church, which plays an important role, both positive and negative, following such events. Occasionally MPs or members of municipal councils intervene, but virtually always to aid the security establishment in imposing order and calm rather than apply the law to bring the perpetrators to justice.

47. The judiciary, particularly sitting judges, does not often hear cases of sectarian violence, and it is extremely rare for such crimes to be referred to trial. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor’s role in dealing with the violence is shameful: although Egyptian law gives that office the prerogatives of investigating judges authorized to conduct immediate, independent investigations to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice using evidence of their crimes to protect society from lawbreakers, the Public Prosecutor’s Office tends to aid the security establishment in imposing “reconciliation” procedures, even when these are against the law—for example, accepting reconciliation in felonies, which is not permitted by Egyptian law. At other times the Public Prosecutor conducts investigations for show that lack all evidence, which means that either the perpetrators are not identified or they are acquitted if they are referred to trial. As such, impunity is the norm for most crimes of sectarian violence.