EIPR condemns the state's handling of the sectarian tensions that erupted in the village of Nazlet Gelf in the Beni Mazar district of Minya Governorate on Wednesday, 22 October. The incident was triggered by  the search for a Muslim girl who was found to have been present for several hours at the home of a Christian family. The girl's family accused a Christian youth of kidnapping her, and angry marches through the village streets ensued. The marches turned into a mob that started throwing bricks at Christian homes and setting fire to  a number of Christian families' huts on agricultural land. Following this, a 'customary tribunal' was held, which fined the Christian family one million Egyptian pounds and ordered them to leave the village after selling their property.

For nearly twenty years, researchers at EIPR have documented and studied the use of 'customary reconciliation sessions' in the context of sectarian incidents in several governorates, analysing their outcomes and tracking their effects. In 2015, EIPR published a study entitled "According to Whose Custom? The Role of Customary Reconciliation Sessions in Sectarian Conflict and the Responsibility of the State the Role of Customary Justice in Sectarian Conflicts and State Responsibility," which included the most prominent findings of our decades-long analysis.

Although there is no objection in principle to community interventions and the role of customary local leaders in resolving sectarian conflicts, our documentation shows beyond any doubt that the imbalance of power in the context of sectarian conflict leads in the overwhelming majority of these cases to customary decisions that protect the perpetrator from accountability. It punishes the weaker party even when they are the victim, subjecting the family of the person concerned and even all those who share their religion in their neighbourhood to persecution simply because they are Christians.

EIPR reiterates that these sessions, in their current form, represent a serious violation of the tenets of citizenship and non-discrimination and the legal system, especially in light of the patronage of security and official leaders of these sessions and the dictation of some pre-determined decisions to  customary arbitration committees. EIPR affirms that this mechanism has deepened sectarian conflicts rather than containing them, and that it has become an additional source of multiple violations of a range of fundamental constitutional rights of citizens in the absence of effective roles for political and popular-based state institutions.

According to several statements from villagers, there are two prevailing accounts of the incident: The first version is from the girl's family, who noticed her disappearance and searched for her in the village until a neighbour reported that she was in the Christian family's house. The neighbour stated that the girl had lost consciousness in a grocery store, so the Christian young man carried her to his family's house, where she was found. The second version, from the Christian side, states that the Muslim girl is a friend of the Christian young man's sister, that the young man and the girl are romantically involved, and that she went to the family's house of her own free will.

In the absence of an account from the woman herself, the way these events are handled reveals a pattern of treating Christians as a 'tribe,' in which all members are held responsible for the perceived mistakes of any one of them, even if they are not related or did not know each other beforehand. Similarly, all Muslims become responsible for the 'honour of Muslim girls and women' and are therefore required to defend it.

What is worrying is the accepted communal custodianship over the girl’s fate and interference with her personal choices , and the fact that no effort was made to ensure her safety and that she is not subjected to punishment by her family as a result of her choices or even as a reaction to the assault on her – if the family's account is true.

As soon as the news spread, social media posts and videos inciting attacks on the village's Christians and its church began to circulate. Dozens of people gathered and hurled stones at the homes of Christians who had no connection to the young man's family, smashing some windows. Meanwhile, fires were set in some huts on agricultural land owned by Christians. Posts and videos on social media called for the intervention of the security forces to prevent the attacks from escalating, while some videos documented the attacks, including one showing a woman and children throwing bricks at the doors of houses. Security forces quickly dispersed the crowd and arrested the young Christian man, while his family and the family of his uncle and grandfather left the village as tensions and incitement escalated.

Over the following days, Christians in the village remained confined to their homes for fear of being attacked amid the continuing wave of incitement. A customary reconciliation session was held on Friday, 24 October 2025, at the home of Mayor Mahmoud Ahmed Yahya, in coordination with security leaders in Minya Governorate, and attended by a number of arbitrators, senior security officials, residents of the village of Nazlet Gelf, and the village priest.

During the reconciliation session, the Christian youth's grandfather was summoned, and in the presence of a number of Christians from the village, an 'oath of exoneration' was taken to clear their names, stating that the incident was not premeditated or planned, but rather a spur-of-the-moment decision by a reckless youth. The customary arbitration committee decided the following:

• The Christian youth's family will be fined one million Egyptian pounds.

• A penalty clause of two million pounds shall be imposed on the party that violates the terms of the agreement in favour of the compliant party.

• Judicial proceedings against the young man will not be discontinued.

• Refraining from posting on social media.

The arbitration committee also approved a decision that was not read out during the session, but EIPR has confirmed its validity from more than one source: the displacement of the Christian youth's family and his grandfather from the village and the sale of their property.

Article 95 of the Egyptian Constitution stipulates that punishment is personal, and that punishment may only be imposed on the person convicted of an offence or crime. However, in the case of customary courts, various forms of collective punishment have been imposed for family and religious reasons. Displacement is one of the harshest punishments that affects entire families, even though Article 63 of the Egyptian Constitution prohibits ‘the arbitrary forced displacement of citizens in all  forms, and violation of this provision is a crime that is not subject to the statute of limitations.’ The customary arbitration committee did not comply with this, resorting to displacement as an unjust settlement to satisfy the majority and restore calm. This happened under the auspices and with the approval—and even the presence—of security leaders who called for the formation of the customary committee. According to the testimony of one of the arbitrators, these decisions were agreed upon before the committee began its work, in the presence of Major General Adel Makram of the Minya Security Directorate and Mayor Mahmoud Yahya, who called for the formation of the customary committee. 

EIPR calls on state agencies to stop supporting the decisions of customary reconciliation committees that violate the constitution and to protect citizens who are subjected to attacks simply because they share the same religion with one of the parties involved in the conflict. The starting point for resolving these sectarian conflicts is the immediate application of the provisions of the constitution and the law relevant to these conflicts without discrimination or selectivity in application, while ensuring the safety and protection of the rights of women who are usually the subject of revenge or sectarian conflict in such cases.

For more information, please refer to EIPR’s study: ِ”According to Whose Custom? The Role of Customary Reconciliation Sessions in Sectarian Conflicts and the Responsibility of the State.”