Ongoing reforms to the European Union’s asylum framework have renewed attention on the criteria used to designate “safe countries of origin,” a determination with significant consequences for individuals seeking international protection. CFJ recognizes the importance of efficient and well-functioning asylum systems, while underscoring that such frameworks must remain firmly anchored in international and European human rights obligations.
In this context, CFJ considers it important to draw attention to the implications of assessing Egypt as a country presumed to be safe for return. Available information from UN human rights mechanisms, European Parliament resolutions, and long-standing civil society documentation continues to indicate persistent challenges relating to the rule of law and the effective protection of fundamental rights in Egypt.
CFJ remains concerned by the continued prevalence of torture and other forms of ill-treatment in places of detention in Egypt, as well as by the recurring occurrence of deaths in custody as a result. Between 1 January and 23 December 2025, CFJ documented 52 cases of death in custody, many occurring in circumstances raising serious questions regarding state responsibility, including allegations of torture, denial of medical care, and prolonged solitary confinement. These patterns are consistent with the findings of the UN Committee against Torture, which has repeatedly concluded that Egyptian authorities have not met their obligations under the Convention against Torture, including the absolute prohibition of torture, the duty to investigate allegations promptly and impartially, and the obligation to ensure accountability for perpetrators. The persistence of such cases underscores the relevance of torture and custodial deaths as central indicators when assessing the safety of return for individuals to Egypt.
CFJ further draws attention to serious and persistent concerns regarding conditions of detention in Egypt, including overcrowding, physical abuse, denial of medical care, and unsafe detention environments. These concerns extend across both older prison facilities and newly established detention complexes presented by the Egyptian authorities as “rehabilitation centers,” most notably the Badr Prison Complex. CFJ documentation indicates that such facilities continue to be characterized by restrictive regulations, such as prolonged isolation, poor ventilation, surveillance cameras, artificial lighting working around the clock, and severe limitations on access to family and lawyer contact and medical services.
In addition to Badr, CFJ has documented assaults against detainees inside Wadi al-Natrun Prison No. 440, as well as repeated incidents of violence, psychological distress, and suicide attempts among political detainees held in New Valley Prison, including during ongoing hunger strikes. These incidents point to detention environments that expose detainees to serious risks to their physical and mental health and raise concerns about the authorities’ failure to ensure minimum standards of humane treatment. Taken together, these conditions reflect a broader structural pattern within Egypt’s detention system in which deprivation of liberty is accompanied by practices that may themselves amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
Concerns have repeatedly been raised regarding the use of prolonged pre-trial detention, broad counter-terrorism legislation, and exceptional judicial procedures, as well as restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. These factors remain relevant when evaluating whether the conditions required for a “safe country of origin” designation are met in practice, beyond the existence of formal legal frameworks.
CFJ also notes that the application of “safe country of origin” presumptions may have significant procedural consequences for asylum seekers, particularly through accelerated examination processes. While such procedures are permissible under EU law, they must not compromise the right to an individualized, fair, and effective assessment of protection needs. In situations where credible risks of arbitrary detention, ill-treatment, or other serious human rights violations persist, heightened caution is warranted.
Moreover, the scope of individuals potentially affected by restrictive policies in Egypt — including journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers, academics, trade unionists, women human rights defenders, members of religious minorities, and persons expressing peaceful dissent — illustrates the complexity of applying broad presumptions of safety. This diversity of risk profiles reinforces the importance of maintaining robust safeguards within asylum procedures.
CFJ recalls that the European Union and its Member States remain bound by the principle of non-refoulement and by their commitments under international refugee law, and international human rights law. Ensuring that country-of-origin assessments are evidence-based, regularly reviewed, and informed by a wide range of credible sources is essential to upholding these commitments.
In light of these considerations, CFJ encourages EU institutions to continue engaging in careful, transparent, and inclusive deliberations when evaluating country-of-origin designations, and to ensure that protection considerations remain central to any reform of the EU asylum framework.