
Breaking the Chains: How El-Sharkawi’s Case Exposes Egypt’s Systemic Repression by Natasha Arnpreister and James Goldston
This is the fourth blog in a series featuring legal representatives and experts in the field of strategic litigation against torture discussing the strategic impact of cases catalogued in Casebook 1.
In this blog piece, Natasha Arnpreister Senior Legal Counsel and James Goldston, Executive Director of Open Society Justice Initiative, examine its most strategic features.
The Open Society Justice Initiative represented Mr El Sharkawi before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. For further information on Egypt see Torture in Egypt: A Crime Against Humanity, and Defying Justice: Egypt’s Failure to Implement the African Commission’s Decision on Ending Torture.
Download Casebook I

Natasha Arnpreister and James Goldston
Fifteen years. That’s how long our client Mohammed Abderrahim El-Sharkawi was unjustly detained, subjected to unimaginable suffering at the hands of Egypt’s security apparatus. Labeled a “national security threat,” he was never charged or tried for any offense.
Mr. Sharkawi endured unspeakable brutality—beatings so severe they tore cartilage between his ribs and lacerated his skin, compounded by prolonged electroshock. Suspended by his wrists and ankles for hours and isolated in inhumane conditions, Mr. Sharkawi bore the full weight of a system designed not to protect but to oppress.
Such horrors were institutionalized practices enabled by Egypt’s 1958 Emergency Law. This law empowers the president to unilaterally declare a “state of emergency,” granting unchecked powers to detain individuals indefinitely under the vague premise of national security. It bypasses ordinary courts, funneling detainees into executive-controlled Emergency Courts, where impartiality is a distant concept. For over 50 years, successive Egyptian leaders transformed emergency rule into a near-permanent state of governance that spanned decades, divorced from its original purpose as a brief, exceptional measure to address genuine emergencies.
In April 2021, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, a judicial body established under the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, delivered a searing indictment of these practices in the case of El Sharkawi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, which condemned Mr. Sharkawi’s treatment as unlawful. The Commission stressed that the exigencies of countering terrorism cannot justify abuses such as torture and arbitrary detention and declared Egypt’s decades-long reliance on emergency powers a gross violation of the Charter. The Commission underscored a vital truth: while national security is essential, it must never serve as a pretext for authoritarian excesses.
The Commission went beyond rhetoric, ordering Egypt to pay Mr. Sharkawi one million Egyptian pounds, issue a formal apology, and establish a commission of inquiry into his abuses. Critically, it ordered the government to reform Egypt’s emergency law and related practices to prevent future violations, challenging the legal scaffolding that upholds Egypt’s oppressive regime.
Although President Sisi formally lifted Egypt’s state of emergency in October 2021, his government has continued to rule oppressively. Laws like the Anti-Terrorism Law (2015) and Terrorist Entities Law (2015) recalibrated the machinery of repression, granting similarly expansive powers to perpetuate unchecked control without the guise of an “emergency.” Cases like Shaath v. Egypt, currently before the African Commission, reveal how such laws, ostensibly meant to counter terrorism, are weaponized to silence dissent.
Despite its landmark significance, the El Sharkawi ruling faces a familiar challenge: enforcement. Egypt has yet to comply with the Commission’s orders, a reminder of the limitations international human rights bodies face in holding authoritarian regimes accountable. Noncompliance risks undermining even the strongest jurisprudence, testing the efficacy of global justice mechanisms.
And yet, for survivors like Mr. Sharkawi, recognition by authoritative bodies like the African Commission can hold profound significance, offering what oppressors often seek to deny: acknowledgment and dignity. Declaring that such violations occurred can itself serve as a powerful form of justice—even when implementation lags.
Today, Mr. Sharkawi is free, but the scars of his ordeal remain. The decision he secured is not his victory alone, but carries weight for the tens of thousands still languishing in Egypt’s prisons, where torture remains pervasive and systematic. His case demands their release, an end to systemic torture, and the dismantling of the legal frameworks that perpetuate these abuses.
Justice is rarely swift, and the path to accountability is often long and fraught, but decisions like El Sharkwari are vital milestones of progress, a testament to resilience, and a source of hope for survivors and advocates alike. His case is a clarion call for an Egypt where justice is not only sought but increasingly delivered.