Home / Transitional Justice Project / Court Case Spotlight
Security-Related Charges and Designations

Matay Police Station Case

Court / Presiding Judge

First Review: Minya Criminal Court/Judge Said Youssef
Second Review: Minya Criminal Court/Judge Muwad Muhammad Mahmoud
Final Review: Court of Cassation/Judge Farhan Batran

Procedural History

On April 28, 2014, the court issued its verdict. On August 7, 2017, a verdict was issued upon second review. On April 28, 2018, the Court of Cassation issued its final verdict in the case.


Upon first review, the court sentenced 37 defendants to death and the remaining defendants to life in prison. Upon second review, the court sentenced 12 defendants to death, 119 to life in prison, and two to 10 years in prison; it acquitted the remaining defendants. Upon final review, the Court of Cassation confirmed the death sentences of six defendants, reduced the death sentences of six to life in prison, and affirmed the life sentences of 48 and the acquittal of 47.

Summary of Reasoning

The case dates back to the attack on the Matay Police Station in the aftermath of the Raba’a al-Adaweya and Nahda Square sit-in dispersals in August 2013. The defendants faced charges of killing a police officer and attempting to kill two others, damaging public property, seizing weapons, illegal public assembly, and membership in a banned organization.

Anecdotal Notes

The first review of this case reportedly took place in less than one hour, had no evidence independently implicating each defendant, and prevented the defense from entering in witness testimony. Defending the trial, one judicial source said “We are in exceptional circumstances. We don’t have time to summon each and every defendant, prove their presence, and confirm who are their lawyers.”

Legal & Judicial Implications

Because the case is a mass trial in which a number of defendants were prosecuted collectively, the case raises numerous implications regarding the right to a fair trial and due process.The fact that the entire case was heard in just one hour and the defense was explicitly prevented from presenting a full case only adds to the gravity of these violations.