Over the past decade many Egyptians involved in disputes have attempted settlement through what are known as 'reconciliation sessions'. These are a traditional conflict resolution tool indigenous to Egyptian culture, in which opposing parties agree to submit their grievances to a non-judicial process. Though appearing to be an effective method for preserving peace amidst conflict while achieving mutually acceptable solutions, these reconciliation sessions have come under increasing controversy, especially when involving disputes between Muslim and Christian parties. Our attention was taken by this procedure in studying recent cases such as Izbet Bushra and Abu Fana, in which conflict erupted between religious groups, in the first instance due to church building issues, in the second over land registration. 

Coptic groups have been critical of these traditional sessions for several reasons. First, the complaint is frequently heard that the Christian party is 'forced' into reconciliation by security forces eager to demonstrate that conflict has ended and peace restored. Second, where there have been instances of aggression against the Copts, parties from both sides have been arrested, but all are released following the reconciliation session. Matters of justice and criminality are dismissed after an 'agreement' has been reached. Third, and most importantly, it is reported that these sessions operate outside of the law. Therefore, any agreement reached is not legally binding, and the rights guaranteed by the law are neither protected nor applied. Copts often complain that as the minority party in these disputes the reconciliation session serves only to superficially address their concerns while letting aggression go unpunished. Celebratory hugs and kisses may depict peace for the newspapers, but symbolize hypocrisy and cement discord in many a Coptic soul. 

Our desire in studying the legal basis for reconciliation was to examine the claims of these Coptic protests. Do reconciliation sessions have a relation to the law? If so, what is it? Are the examples of misuse highlighted by Copts aberrations of an overall beneficial process? What rights do both victims and criminals have following an agreement? 

To answer these questions we employed the services of Marwan al-Ashaal, partner at Marghany Advocates, law firm, Cairo. He undertook a thorough study of Egyptian law and stated that while reconciliation has a place in the national legal codes, it is through a very restricted process of arbitration which does not resemble the practices of reconciliation sessions as witnessed following Egyptian disputes. Such reconciliation has a precedent in international law and in other nations, but it has not yet become enshrined in Egypt. Even if it had, according to all national and international norms those guilty of crimes are never allowed to go free. His analysis confirmed the complaints of Copts that these sessions exist due to the weakness in application of the law, not necessarily in community attempts at maintaining harmony alongside it. This does not mean all such processes are useless, but that the main thrust of Coptic critique is correct: Reconciliation as recently practiced is non-legal. 

Marwan al-Ashaal included in his report background studies which demonstrate that reconciliation sessions are historical practice in Egypt, consistent both with culture and Islamic heritage. He also places Coptic difficulties in a broader context of international and national issues, demonstrating that interreligious tensions are influenced by far more than local disputes over 'reconciliation'. His paper is detailed in terms of references to all relevant legal codes and judicial rulings, and is useful to serve as a reference for any future counsel to those involved in a reconciliation session. Only by knowing the law may one know how a practice departs from it. In terms of reconciliation sessions, though each undertaking may be done well or poorly, his opinion is clear that in all but the most restrictive of cases there is simply no relation to the law at all.