The appearance of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in a Cairo courtroom on Monday reassured millions of Egyptians that their revolutionary struggle was not in vain. But as the trial is now merged with that of the former minister of interior, Habib El Adly, (along with Mr Mubarak's two sons, Alaa and Gamal) and adjourned until next month, the truth about Mr Mubarak's ability to participate in his trial is still unclear.
The public's confidence in these proceedings has suffered as a result.
It is unusual for a defendant to appear in court on a stretcher - a defendant's health is either good enough for him to stand trial or not. With the public already doubting the court's seriousness, Mr Mubarak's appearance could have been a political decision aimed at boosting confidence. If this is the case, the judiciary risks appearing politicised in the eyes of Egyptians.
In transitional societies domestic trials to address crimes of past regimes almost always face major challenges, especially when political transformation is still underway and vetting of state institutions is not complete, as is the case in Egypt. The desire to seek justice early is understandable given the gravity of the alleged crimes, yet the rush to get trials underway can bring undesired results.
Human rights organisations, lawyers, judges and the families of victims have expressed doubts about investigations carried out by the general prosecutor since Mr Mubarak's downfall. This can be attributed to a number of factors, not least that Mr Mubarak himself appointed the prosecutor overseeing inquiries before leaving power.
Under Mr Mubarak's rule, the prosecutor's office was regularly criticised for being used as a tool to silence opposition. According to human rights activists, the office was complicit with the policy of impunity.
Investigations are also affected by the continued abuse of police power, which still has not undergone a serious vetting process despite the interior minister's measures aimed at changing its image. Human rights organisations have discovered numerous cases of witnesses and relatives of victims being pressured by police officers accused of killing protesters to change their statements, or to prevent them from filing complaints.
Egyptian society suffers from a growing discourse of political vengeance and popular pressure on judges to expedite trials. The public demand to accelerate judicial procedures is understandable given the gravity of violations, the lack of transparency in prosecution strategy and the big hurdles to victim participation. But the demand to expedite trials does not take into consideration guarantees granted to the defence nor the complicated nature of investigating this magnitude of political and economic crimes.
Nonetheless, the judiciary must be able to work calmly to ensure a sound process, and to accomplish justice that is not vengeful. Justice and the rule of law were at the heart of the Egyptian revolution. If Egyptians want to break with the past they must encourage a fair judicial process. Moreover, trials will constitute historical documentation of the transition period. Thus, a fair and careful process is in the interest of present and future generations.
The Egyptian judiciary is not accustomed to communicating with the public and the media. The attempts at providing details and procedures therefore feed speculation and rumours about inquiries and trials. Despite the importance of some steps recently taken by the Supreme Judicial Council to make trials public and ensure victim participation, other outreach measures are still needed to mend the bridge of confidence with the public.
So far, most reformative steps taken by the transitional government have been in reaction to public pressure, rather than based on a clear strategy that would attend to the various challenges of the transition. This approach has extended to the courtroom.
Inquiries and charges for human rights abuses pressed against members of the former regime thus far have not gone beyond crimes that occurred during the 18 days of the Egyptian revolution. There has been no effort to draw a picture of Egypt's decades of repression and the rights of those victimised in that time.
Local and international human rights organisations and UN human rights bodies have been documenting human rights violations in Egypt, including in the framework of combating terrorism - such as torture, extra-judicial killing, long-term arbitrary detention and forced disappearance. So far there seems to be no political will to investigate these crimes and hold perpetrators accountable despite calls from civil society to address these violations.
Achieving justice and accountability has contributed to bringing together other societies torn by conflict and authoritarianism. It is not a panacea but it can help a society express its past grievances and re-establish trust in state institutions - two necessary pieces in moving to a more open society.
The political moment in Egypt can be built upon to strengthen the rule of law and human rights. Trials of the symbols of the former regime, with Mr Mubarak at their head, might give impetus in that direction.
Nevertheless, if the challenges threatening the integrity of these trials are not addressed, the course of the criminal trials may seriously undermine the transition, as well as the people's confidence in the judiciary.
Moataz El Fegiery is deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the International Centre for Transitional Justice
