الحكم على مبارك قد يقلب موازين الانتخابات في مصر

Mr. Hassanin, 18, ducked between parked cars, he later told prosecutors, but not fast enough. A bullet entered the back of his head, leaving his body permanently numb on one side and his speech only a barely intelligible, childlike moan.
On Saturday, a panel of judges in Mr. Mubarak’s criminal trial for the police shootings of Mr. Hassanin and roughly 250 other people is expected to issue a verdict that could inject a volatile new ingredient into the race to elect Mr. Mubarak’s successor.
An acquittal or a light sentence could ignite a new wave of street protests. And almost any outcome could have awkward consequences for Ahmed Shafik, Mr. Mubarak’s last prime minister and one of two candidates in the presidential runoff. A conviction of his former boss could tarnish Mr. Shafik, or he could be caught in the backlash against an acquittal.
But a year after Mr. Mubarak, 84, was first wheeled into the courtroom on a hospital gurney — a modern Ozymandias, the first Arab strongman brought before the law — human rights lawyers now dismiss the trial as a missed opportunity that shed little light on the abuses of his 30-year rule.
“It certainly doesn’t seem to address the many systemic issues that were at the heart of the protests,” said Ruti G. Teitel, an expert on transitional justice at New York Law School.
Like many families of the victims, Mr. Hassanin’s father said he was pessimistic. “He should be punished so that whoever comes next will learn the lessons that there are poor people who have a right to express their opinion,” said the father, Mohamed Hassanin. “If they acquit him, the country will always be like that — afraid of the whip and the club. And if the people go along with that, they will always be cowards.”
Apparently rushing the case to court to placate street protesters in April 2011, prosecutors charged Mr. Mubarak with responsibility for the killing of civilian protesters during the last six days of January 2011.
Mr. Mubarak could face the death penalty if convicted, but prosecutors did not provide evidence that he had directly ordered the killings. They relied instead on theories that the police would not have used live ammunition without his authorization, or that Mr. Mubarak had failed to stop the killings.
Lawyers for Mr. Mubarak did not respond to a request for comment. But Egyptian and American legal experts say those arguments are not enough to convict him of complicity in murder under Egyptian, American or international law, although judges here sometimes try to exert more discretion.
“It is a tough case, because the evidence is not that strong,” said Magda Boutros, who followed the case for the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. “It depends what motivates the conviction — legal or political reasons.”
Although it is widely acknowledged that Mr. Mubarak’s government was riddled with corruption, Mr. Mubarak and his sons, Gamal and Alaa, were also charged, with only one count of enriching themselves at the public expense during their father’s tenure — by accepting the discounted sale of luxurious vacation homes near the Red Sea from Mr. Mubarak’s friend and ally Hussein Salem, who is awaiting extradition from Spain.
In return, prosecutors say, Mr. Mubarak approved a no-bid contract that allowed a company controlled by Mr. Salem to buy Egyptian natural gas at below-market prices for resale to Israel, and the discounted sale of public land near the Red Sea to Mr. Salem’s development company.
“It was very rudimentary,” said Heba Morayef, a researcher for Human Rights Watch. “O.K., what can we find? Four villas in Sharm el Sheik! Let’s use that.”
Under Egyptian law, the maximum sentence for bribery is life in prison, and for the lesser offense of squandering public funds, 3 to 15 years, Ms. Morayef said. But he prosecution did not provide evidence of an explicit deal linking the Mubaraks’ beach houses and official favors for Mr. Salem. Under United States law, without recordings or other evidence of an explicit bribe, Mr. Mubarak would face a maximum of two years in prison for what is called an illegal “gratuity.”