Introduction
The development of modern criminal policy is no longer measured solely by the severity of penalties, but also by the legal system’s ability to protect society, provide redress to the victim, rehabilitate the offender, and resolve disputes with the least possible social harm.
From this perspective, restorative justice has emerged as an approach focused on addressing the harm caused by crime and involving the victim and the offender—in appropriate cases—in reaching an outcome that achieves a degree of reparation, responsibility, and reintegration, instead of limiting the criminal response to punishment alone.
Criminal mediation is one of the tools of this approach, but it is not synonymous with amicable settlement or reconciliation. Mediation presupposes an organized process, a neutral third party, voluntary participation by the parties, and safeguards of confidentiality and fairness, whereas a direct settlement may take place between the accused and the victim without any mediator at all.
This distinction is particularly important in Egypt following the issuance of the new Criminal Procedure Law No. 174 of 2025, which expanded the scope of amicable settlement and reconciliation and attached significant legal effects to them, but has not yet adopted a general and independent system for criminal mediation.
First: Where Does Egypt Stand Legislatively in September 2026?
The new Criminal Procedure Bill underwent an exceptional legislative process. The President of the Republic referred it back to the House of Representatives on 21 September 2025 for reconsideration of a number of its provisions, and among the reasons for the objection were the need to increase safeguards for the protection of rights and freedoms, reinforce the sanctity of homes, expand alternatives to pretrial detention, and remove areas of ambiguity that might create practical difficulties in implementation.
After reconsideration of the contested provisions, the House of Representatives finally approved the amendments on 16 October 2025, and Law No. 174 of 2025 was then issued on 12 November 2025.
The law provides that it shall enter into force on 1 October 2026. Therefore, as of the date of updating this article—September 2026—Criminal Procedure Law No. 150 of 1950 remains the general procedural framework in force until the end of September, while the new system will begin at the start of October, subject to any effects that may arise from provisions more favorable to the defendant in accordance with general principles.
Second: What Is Meant by Criminal Mediation?
Criminal mediation is an organized voluntary process in which the victim and the offender, or their respective representatives, meet with the assistance of a neutral mediator, with the aim of addressing the consequences of the crime and reaching—where possible—an agreement acceptable to both parties.
Depending on the nature of the offense and the legal framework, the agreement may include:
- Compensation for the victim for the harm suffered.
- Restitution of money or repair of damage.
- An apology or a clear acceptance of responsibility for the conduct.
- Commitment to certain conduct or to a therapeutic or rehabilitative program.
- Bringing the effects of the dispute between the parties to an end and preventing its recurrence.
However, the mediator does not render a judgment, impose a settlement on either party, or replace the judge or the Public Prosecution. The mediator’s core function is to manage the dialogue in a neutral and safe manner that helps the parties reach a voluntary agreement.
Third: Criminal Mediation Is Not the Same as Amicable Settlement or Reconciliation
It is essential to distinguish between three concepts that are often confused in legal discussion:
- Amicable settlement: an agreement between the victim and the accused to which the law attaches a specific effect in the criminal case where such settlement is legally permissible.
- Reconciliation: a legal mechanism that may take place between the accused or violator and the state or competent authority, and is often associated with the payment of a sum of money or the settlement of a legal position under defined conditions.
- Criminal mediation: an organized negotiation process involving a neutral mediator with the aim of reaching a conciliatory settlement.
Accordingly, the existence of provisions on amicable settlement and reconciliation in Egyptian law does not mean that Egypt has automatically adopted a criminal mediation system.
Fourth: What Did the New Criminal Procedure Law Add in the Field of Restorative Justice?
Although it did not create an independent mediation system, Law No. 174 of 2025 includes an important development in conciliatory tools.
1. Reconciliation in Contraventions and Certain Misdemeanors
Article 20 of the new law regulates reconciliation in contraventions and in a category of misdemeanors carrying limited penalties, and provides that payment of the reconciliation amount in accordance with the legal conditions results in the extinction of the criminal case, without thereby affecting the civil action.
This mechanism differs from mediation because it is based on conditions and sums prescribed by law, and does not require negotiations between the offender and the victim or the intervention of an independent mediator.
2. Amicable Settlement Between the Victim and the Accused
Article 21 of the new law expands the scope of amicable settlement in a specified number of misdemeanors and contraventions set out in the Penal Code, including—among others—certain cases of manslaughter and negligent injury, assault and battery, fraud, breach of trust, and other offenses listed in detail in the text.
The settlement may be evidenced before the Public Prosecution or the court, and may occur at any stage of the proceedings, and even after the judgment has become final in the cases permitted by the text.
In the offenses subject to this article, it results in the extinction of the criminal case, and the Public Prosecution orders suspension of the execution of the sentence if the settlement occurs before or during execution, without prejudice to the injured party’s civil rights in accordance with the law.
3. A Notable Development in Certain Homicide Offenses
Among the most important innovations is Article 22, which allows the heirs of the victim to establish settlement up to the issuance of a final judgment in certain serious offenses identified by the legislature, including particular forms of intentional homicide and assault resulting in death.
However, the effect of settlement here differs from Article 21; it does not result in the extinction of the criminal case, but rather leads to mitigation of the penalty pursuant to Article 17 of the Penal Code.
This distinction is highly significant, because it shows that the legislature did not treat settlement as having a uniform effect in all crimes, but instead took into account the seriousness of the offense and the public interest associated with punishment.
4. Reconciliation in Certain Public Funds Crimes
The law also regulates, in Article 23, a special mechanism for reconciliation in the offenses set out in Chapter Four of Book Two of the Penal Code, through an expert committee and approval by the Council of Ministers, thereby confirming the multiplicity of forms of reconciliation and their variation according to the nature of the offense and the interest protected by the criminal provision.
Fifth: Did the New Law Include “Criminal Mediation”?
The answer is no, not in the technical and independent sense of criminal mediation.
The new law regulates amicable settlement and reconciliation and their effects, but it did not create a general framework that includes:
- Referral of the case to a neutral criminal mediator.
- Determination of the conditions for selecting and accrediting mediators.
- Regulation of mediation sessions and their procedures.
- Confidentiality of what takes place during them.
- Determination of the effect of failed mediation on the criminal case.
- Prohibition on using statements made during mediation as evidence against any of its parties.
- Establishment of independent standards for determining which crimes are suitable for referral to mediation.
Accordingly, the more accurate description of the current Egyptian position is that it is moving toward expanding conciliatory tools, but has not yet reached the stage of codifying criminal mediation as an integrated procedural system.
Sixth: Why Might Egypt Need Mediation Despite the Existence of Settlement?
At first glance, it may appear that the existing framework of amicable settlement makes mediation unnecessary, but the practical difference is substantial.
In many cases, direct communication between the offender and the victim is difficult because of tension, loss of trust, fear, or inability to determine fair compensation. Here, a qualified mediator can provide a structured environment for dialogue without favoring either party.
Mediation can also address issues that traditional settlement may not address, such as:
- Helping the victim understand what happened and why it happened.
- Ensuring that the offender assumes personal responsibility, not merely financial liability.
- Repairing harm where practical repair is possible.
- Defining future commitments that prevent the dispute from recurring.
- Reaching a settlement that responds to the victim’s needs rather than being limited to a monetary payment.
For this reason, mediation can complement amicable settlement rather than replace it.
Seventh: What Cases Could Be Considered for Referral to Mediation?
If the Egyptian legislature moves in the future toward regulating mediation, it would not be appropriate to open it to all crimes without distinction.
After careful study, implementation could begin with certain misdemeanors in which there is an identifiable victim and reparable harm, such as some disputes involving minor property damage, some low-severity assaults, and certain financial disputes in which the law already permits amicable settlement.
By contrast, crimes involving serious violence, exploitation, coercion, or a severe imbalance of power between the parties require stricter safeguards and may be unsuitable for mediation altogether.
The priority must always be the safety of the victim and the prevention of mediation being turned into a means of pressuring the victim to waive his or her rights.
Eighth: Why Do Domestic Violence Offenses Represent a Sensitive Model?
One of the common mistakes is to treat every dispute between two persons as suitable for negotiation.
In some domestic violence offenses, the relationship between the parties may be based on control, fear, or economic dependence, such that the victim’s consent to mediation is not genuinely free.
For this reason, comparative legal experiences tend to prohibit or strictly restrict mediation in certain forms of violence within the family. French law, for example, allows the prosecution to refer certain cases to mediation between the offender and the victim, but excludes mediation in certain cases of violence between spouses.
The lesson that can be drawn is that the success of mediation should not be measured by the number of cases it closes, but by whether participation is safe, free, and fair.
Ninth: The Most Important Safeguards That Any Future Egyptian Regulation Should Include
If the legislature moves toward codifying criminal mediation, it is not enough merely to state that “reconciliation through a mediator is permissible.” Rather, a comprehensive system of safeguards should be created.
1. Free and Informed Consent
Neither party should enter mediation under pressure, and each should understand the nature of the process, its consequences, and the right to withdraw from it before the agreement is concluded.
2. Protection of the Victim
The possibility of the victim being subjected to intimidation, retaliation, or psychological pressure should be assessed before the case is referred, with protection and legal support provided where necessary.
3. Neutrality of the Mediator
The mediator must be independent and have no interest in the matter, and his or her role must not be to persuade the victim to waive rights or push the accused into making an admission.
4. Confidentiality
Mediation sessions should be confidential, and statements or offers made during them should not be used against either party if mediation fails and the case returns to the ordinary criminal track, except in exceptional cases defined by law.
5. The Right to Legal Advice
The role of the lawyer is not inconsistent with mediation. On the contrary, the lawyer’s presence may be necessary so that the client understands the legal effect of any agreement before signing it.
6. Proportionality
Mediation must not become a marketplace in which the financially able can buy the termination of prosecution while those without means cannot. Therefore, the obligations arising from the settlement must be proportionate to the offense, the harm, and the parties’ capacities.
7. Oversight by the Public Prosecution or the Judiciary
The state must retain supervisory authority over whether a case is suitable for mediation and whether the agreement is lawful, because the criminal action does not represent the victim’s private interest alone, but is also linked to the public interest.
Tenth: What Do We Learn from Comparative Experiences?
Some legal systems have known criminal mediation for many years. In France, the Code of Criminal Procedure permits the Public Prosecution, before deciding whether to proceed with a case in situations allowed by law, to refer the dispute to mediation between the offender and the victim if this is appropriate to redress the harm, end the disturbance resulting from the offense, or contribute to the offender’s rehabilitation.
European restorative justice standards have also established important safeguards, including that the victim’s participation be based on free and informed consent that may be withdrawn, that the victim receive complete information before participation about the process and its consequences, that the agreement be voluntary, and that non-public discussions be protected by confidentiality.
These safeguards are more important than merely importing the term “mediation” into Egyptian law.
Eleventh: Does Mediation Lead to Impunity?
Mediation should not be presented as abolishing punishment or as leniency toward crime.
The effect of mediation depends on the model chosen by the legislature. It may provide that successful mediation results in the extinction of the criminal case in minor offenses, or that it serves as a basis for suspending prosecution subject to conditions, or that it is taken into account when determining the sentence in other offenses.
Egyptian law itself provides an example of this idea through the different effects of settlement under Articles 21 and 22 of the new Criminal Procedure Law: under the former, the criminal case may be extinguished, while under the latter settlement leads only to mitigation of the penalty.
Accordingly, a multi-tier mediation system can be designed to reflect the seriousness of each offense.
Twelfth: Can Mediation Reduce Case Congestion?
Mediation can help ease the burden on the Public Prosecution and the courts if it is used in appropriate cases, but this is not its only purpose and should not be the primary criterion for judging its success.
Referring thousands of cases to unqualified mediation centers may simply shift congestion from the courts to another body without achieving better justice.
The primary goal should be to improve the quality of the criminal response and achieve genuine redress of harm, while speedier resolution and lower cost should come as additional outcomes.
Thirteenth: The Role of the Public Prosecution in Any Future Egyptian Model
The Public Prosecution may be the most suitable body to decide on referral to mediation, especially before the criminal case is brought, because it is the authority responsible for initiating and conducting the criminal action and for assessing the appropriateness of procedures within the limits set by law.
However, the mediation process itself should remain as separate as possible from the investigative authority, so that the accused does not feel that what is said in the settlement session may turn into an admission against him, and the victim does not feel that the body managing the negotiation is pressuring him or her to end the case.
It is possible for cases to be referred to accredited centers or mediators, with the result of the mediation then returning to the Public Prosecution so that it may decide the legal effect prescribed by law.
Fourteenth: Who Is the Criminal Mediator?
It is not enough for the mediator to be a lawyer, a former judge, or a social specialist. Mediation is an independent skill that requires training in conflict management, negotiation, criminal psychology, dealing with victims, and identifying imbalances of power between the parties.
If the system is codified, it would be appropriate to establish a register of accredited mediators and to set clear conditions for training, qualification, renewal, and disciplinary accountability, together with strict rules regarding conflicts of interest and confidentiality.
Fifteenth: What Does This Mean for Lawyers and Law Firms?
As of September 2026, there is no official general criminal mediation framework that would allow a law firm to present itself as a “judicial criminal mediation center” based on the Criminal Procedure Law.
However, the expansion of settlement and reconciliation under the new law makes negotiation and settlement skills in criminal cases more important for lawyers.
It is useful for law firms to prepare for this trend by:
- Understanding the precise distinctions between amicable settlement, reconciliation, and mediation.
- Studying Articles 20 to 23 of the new Criminal Procedure Law and the legal effect of each.
- Developing negotiation skills in compensation and redress matters.
- Training lawyers to protect both the victim’s and the accused’s consent from coercion.
- Studying comparative criminal mediation experiences and their safeguards.
- Not making promises to clients that the criminal case will be extinguished unless the offense is one in which the law expressly provides for that effect.
Sixteenth: A Proposed Vision for Future Egyptian Legislation
If the current expansion of settlement and reconciliation proves successful, the next step could be to study the creation of a pilot criminal mediation system on a limited scale.
The system could begin with a selected group of settlement-eligible misdemeanors, with referral by the Public Prosecution, an accredited mediator, express consent from both parties, confidentiality of the sessions, and the right of each party to be assisted by counsel.
The experiment could then be evaluated on the basis of clear criteria, including victim satisfaction, implementation of agreements, recidivism rates, the time required to reach settlement, and the extent to which fair trial guarantees were respected.
A gradual approach to implementation is safer than introducing a broad system without an institutional structure capable of protecting it from becoming merely a tool of pressure to obtain waivers.
Conclusion
Law No. 174 of 2025 on Criminal Procedure represents an important step in the development of Egyptian criminal procedural policy, and it has materially strengthened the role of amicable settlement and reconciliation within the criminal justice system. However, it has not yet established a general criminal mediation system in the sense known in comparative restorative justice models.
This gap is not necessarily a deficiency that must be filled hastily. Criminal mediation does not succeed merely by adding an article to the law; it requires a precise determination of the scope of offenses, safeguards to protect the victim and the accused, qualified mediators, genuine confidentiality, and judicial or prosecutorial oversight over the outcomes.
The recent legislative development may present a suitable opportunity to study this model in Egypt. The legislature has already become more receptive to the idea that certain criminal disputes may come to an end or be affected by the will of the parties and the redress of harm, as reflected in the provisions governing amicable settlement and reconciliation in the new law.
But restorative justice does not mean replacing trial in every case, nor turning crime into a civil dispute between two individuals. The state remains an interested party in protecting public order, and there are offenses in respect of which negotiation is neither appropriate nor fair.
The real challenge is to reach a framework that combines society’s right to accountability, the victim’s right to protection and redress, the accused’s right to a fair trial, and the possibility of repairing harm where reconciliation is more beneficial than continued litigation.
Accordingly, the future of criminal mediation in Egypt should not rest on the slogan of being an “alternative to punishment,” but on a more precise concept: an additional tool of justice, used where it is better able to repair harm without compromising society’s rights or the parties’ safeguards.
My advice to fellow practitioners and law firms: the movement toward restorative justice is expanding within modern criminal policy, but preparation for it begins with understanding the current law first. Study carefully the rules on amicable settlement and reconciliation in the new Criminal Procedure Law, develop negotiation and redress skills, and follow any future legislative regulation of mediation before presenting it to the public as an official criminal procedure.
Written and Prepared by: Dr. Mostafa El Rouby