CCPR/C/122/D/2595/2015
that the applicant had made vague and unlikely statements to the effect that he could live on
the property in the mountains for several years without the authorities being able to
establish contact with him. Therefore, the Board found that the copy of the military service
call-up papers submitted by the author to the Immigration Service could not be accorded
any weight.
2.5
Regarding the author’s claim that he also feared the Muslim Brotherhood, the Board
found that the claim that the organization had tried to recruit him after his return from Italy
appeared to be fabricated. It found it unlikely that representatives of the organization would
show their arsenal to the author, who was a stranger to them, and it noted that, according to
background information, the Muslim Brotherhood recruited persons who were already
followers of its ideology and that recruitment primarily took place at educational
establishments. The Board concluded that it did not find the author’s claims that he was
wanted by the authorities owing to his evasion of military service or his being affiliated
with the Muslim Brotherhood to be credible, nor did it find his claim that he was at risk of
harm from the Muslim Brotherhood to be credible.
2.6
In his complaint, the author also refers to a memorandum by the Danish Ministry of
Foreign Affairs provided to the Immigration Service on the penalties for draft evasion in
Egypt, dated 26 August 2014. The memorandum states that it is not possible for draft
evaders to leave the country legally, since no male over the age of 18 would be issued with
a passport or permitted to leave the country without a certificate from the military granting
permission to leave the country while drafted or granting an exemption from military
service. The memorandum further notes that the penalty for draft evasion under the Military
Conscription Law No. 127 of 1980 depends on the situation and the age of the person. If the
draft evader is under 30 years of age and simply failed to appear for the medical
examination or did not submit documentation to confirm his military status upon turning 18,
the penalty is one extra year of service. If the draft evader is 30 years of age in the same
situation, the penalty is no less than a two-year sentence of imprisonment and/or a fine of
2,000 to 5,000 Egyptian pounds (approximately $100–300). According to the Military
Prosecutor’s Office, the common practice in such cases is to hold a quick hearing in a
military court and impose a fine ranging from 2,200 to 2,300 Egyptian pounds
(approximately $125), but not a prison sentence. If the draft evader submitted fraudulent
documents in order to avoid conscription, the penalty imposed under article 50 of the
Military Conscription Law is three to seven years’ imprisonment. There is no specific
penalty prescribed in the Military Conscription Law for avoiding conscription by leaving
the country. According to the Military Prosecutor’s Office, this could fall either under
article 50, with a penalty of three to seven years’ imprisonment, or under article 54, which
pertains to “other violations” and prescribes a penalty of a minimum of two years’
imprisonment and/or a fine of 200 to 500 Egyptian pounds (approximately $10–30).
However, depending on the case, the defendant could also be subject to stricter provisions
set out in the Penal Code for civilians if the Military Prosecutor seeks the assistance of the
General Prosecutor. According to the Military Prosecutor’s Office, in cases of repeated
draft evasion, the evader is punished under article 50 of the Military Conscription Law by
no less than seven years’ imprisonment. However, the Military Prosecutor could seek the
assistance of the General Prosecutor, in which case the draft evader would be classified as
“wanted” by the authorities and a “stricter” penalty could be applied in accordance with the
Penal Code. According to the Military Prosecutor’s Office, the penalty for draft evasion is
normally enforced.
The complaint
3.
The author claims that his deportation to Egypt would violate his rights under
articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. He argues that there are only very limited possibilities for
exemption from military service in Egypt, none of which are applicable in his case.
Additionally, Egypt does not allow for alternative military service for those who object to
military service on the grounds of religious or other personal convictions. The author
claims that, if returned to Egypt, he would be at risk of being sentenced to two to seven
3