...
Although the Supreme Constitutional Court took surprisingly bold stands on most political issues, there were important limits to the Courts Court's activism. At odds with its strong record of rights activism, the Supreme Constitutional Court ruled Egypt's emergency courts (al- mahākim at-tawāri') constitutional (cf. al-Mahkama ad-Dustūriyya al-'Ulyā 1984: 80), and it has conspicuously delayed issuing a ruling on the constitutionality of civilian transfers to military courts. The qānūn at-tawāri' (Emergency Law) allows for referrals to those exceptional courts, and the military ruler - i.e., the President of the Republic or his designate - can refer civilians to military courts (al-mahākim al-'askariyya). The judges in such trials are officers appointed by the Minister of Defence who have no independence but are rather subordinate to the top-down authority structure of the military establishment (Hassan 2010; Moustafa 2008: 153). However, the Supreme Constitutional Court reasoned e.g. that since Article 171 of the Constitution provided for the al-mahākim at-tawāri', it must be considered a legitimate and regular component of the judicial authority. Moreover, it also reasoned that the provision of Law 50/1982, giving the al-mahākim at-tawāri' the sole competency to adjudicate their own appeals and complaints, was not in conflict with Article 172 of the Constitution. Given that Egypt has remained in a perpetual state of emergency for all but six months since 1967, the al-mahākim at-tawāri', and more recently, especially after the upsurge of Islamist violence in 1992, the al- mahākim al-'askariyya have effectively formed a parallel legal system with fewer procedural safeguards, serving as the ultimate regime check on challenges to its power (Moustafa 2008: 151 et seq.; Saleh 2004: 81; Brown 1997: 114).
...
