The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) has filed a lawsuit before the civil judiciary seeking compensation for the mother of Mohamed Kandil, known as "Mohand," for the material and moral damages resulting from his death at the Tanta II Police Station at the hands of four other detainees in a camera-monitored cell. The police officers in charge failed to intervene, protect him, or prevent the assault on him for nearly seven continuous hours, in explicit violation of Article 55 of the Constitution, which guarantees that anyone arrested must have their dignity preserved and not be harmed physically or mentally. EIPR’s lawyer filed the lawsuit on behalf of Mohand's mother before the Tanta Court (3rd Civil Government Circuit, West Tanta Court of First Instance) against the Minister of Interior, the Assistant Minister for the Public Security Sector, the Gharbia Security Director, and the Chief of Tanta II Police Station, in their official capacities. The first session took place on July 30, and the state attorney requested time to review the case, leading the court to postpone the session to October 8.

Mohand, a microbus driver not older than 23, was involved in a traffic dispute over the right of way with a judge (H. Sh.) on July 3, 2024. The judge filed a police report accusing Mohand of insulting him and attempted murder, which prompted Mohand to surrender himself to the police station voluntarily.

 The Prosecution interrogated him, during which he denied the charges, and decided to remand him to pretrial detention pending Case No. 16362 of 2024 (Tanta II Misdemeanors). Mohand was unable to defend himself before the court because his pretrial detention lasted only one month before he passed away on August 4, 2024. He was subjected to severe beatings for nearly seven continuous hours by several co-detainees until he lost consciousness, receiving no assistance from the police personnel. His loss of consciousness was only discovered when it was time to transport him to court for his first trial session, and he took his last breath immediately after being transferred to El-Menshawy General Hospital.

The Public Prosecution investigated Mohand’s death and questioned ten detainees who were with him in cell no. 9 at Tanta II Police Station regarding the circumstances of the incident. All ten witnesses confirmed the same account: four detainees assaulted Mohand after he was forced to use the cell’s toilet multiple times due to feeling ill, which angered them. Witnesses testified that the suspects bound Mohand to prevent him from using the toilet again and beat him continuously from 1:00 AM until 8:00 AM, while he was unable to resist or defend himself due to fear, as it was his first time in such a situation and his deteriorating health. The witnesses' testimony and the suspects' confessions aligned with the official court documents regarding the surveillance footage from the detention cell, which showed Mohand walking unsteadily over his fellow detainees sleeping on the floor before falling. One detainee then restrained and choked him, while others took turns assaulting and beating him on various parts of his body.

According to detainee testimonies recorded in official court records, Mohand did not see the sun during the last month of his life and suffered under dismal detention conditions inside a 6×6 meter room. Within this space, approximately 50 cm × 50 cm was designated as a bathroom with a single squat toilet meant for nearly forty men, none of whom were permitted to exercise their legal right to exercise, ventilation, or regular medical examination by a specialist when needed.

The Public Prosecution referred four detainees to trial on charges of assaulting Mohand. However, the court rejected the EIPR lawyer’s request to modify the charges to "assault leading to death" and to account for the terror and fear that afflicted Mohand after being bound and beaten for nearly seven continuous hours as directly related to his death. The Tanta II Misdemeanor Court subsequently sentenced each defendant to one year in prison with labor and a bail of 5,000 EGP to temporarily stay the execution. The defendants appealed the verdict, and on May 28, 2025, the Misdemeanor Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.

The conviction of the detainees who assaulted Mohand leaves several questions unanswered. How could a collective assault continue for several hours inside a camera-monitored cell in a police station without any intervention from the station’s administration or guards? Why are nearly forty men detained in a single cell, sharing floor space to sleep, without basic human living requirements? Mohand could have survived and might have proven his innocence. He did not lose his life solely due to physical assault; he suffered from medical neglect for two full days before his death. The police station ignored his need for medical evaluation despite severe illness, high temperatures, and significant fluid loss, an act that amounts to murder by omission due to the negligence of detention center officials. Whether intentional or unintentional, this neglect violates  Egyptian law, which guarantees a range of rights to all detainees without discrimination.

Mohand’s mother decided to file the lawsuit after losing her only male child, who had been supporting her and his father financially and emotionally. Mohand’s parents worked in gas cylinder distribution without health insurance or social security; as they aged and developed various health conditions, Mohand was their sole provider and caregiver. Known for his good character, Mohand lost his life under terrifying circumstances in a detention facility he ended up in by chance, rather than living to work and start a family.

EIPR asserts that awarding compensation to Mohand’s mother is the only logical outcome for the court, as it would help, even in a limited way, redress the harm suffered by a family affected on multiple levels, especially since official court records confirm that Mohand's final days were painful, humiliating, and unjustified. EIPR emphasizes that the Ministry of Interior's responsibility cannot be ignored, as it is obligated under Article 106 of the Prison Regulation Law to guard prisoners. This duty is not limited to preventing escapes; it also extends to ensuring inmates are not subjected to harm, whether by detention facility staff or by other prisoners.