215. For these reasons, the Respondent State urged the Commission to discountenance and dismiss the submissions of the Complainants on this issue, especially considering the claims by the Complainants that they were and are being denied of medical care and that they are being detained under unsanitary conditions. The Respondent State submitted that detainees do have an enforceable right to access medical care and that it was criminal under the Criminal Code of the Respondent State to deny this right to a person in need of medical care. Complainants' allegation of violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the African Charter 216. The Respondent State responds specifically to the Complainants' submission that the Respondent "accords preferential treatment to the Majlis by exempting it from the registration and annual reporting requirements that other religious (and non-religious) institutions have to endure" by submitting in the main that the Commission should dismiss this allegation as it has no relevance as to whether or not the Complainants were legitimately charged under specific provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 - that is, Articles 4 and 7(1) thereof. The' Respondent State submitted that assuming the arguments by the Complainants regarding the power and influence of the Majlis were true, the Complainants nevertheless stepped outside the bounds of the law when declaring Jihad against the association and the government, and stepped within the realm of terroristic incitement. 217. According to the Respondent State, the agency that receives andaccepts registration of religious associations - including that of the Majlis - is the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Pastoralist Area Development (MFAD) and not the Majlis. The Complainants who are the subject of this complaint did not seek registration at the Ministry. According to the Respondent State, had they attempted a MFAD registration and such registration was denied, they would have had an Article 10 of the African Charter violation of the right to free association. 218. The Respondent State, in responding to the Complainants' submission that the Respondent State violated the Defendants' freedom to associate through the Charities and Societies Proclamation (CSP),submitted that this submission be dismissed because it fell outside the Commission's Admissibility decision which required the Complainants to limit their arguments to violations within the context of the AntiTerrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 and that CSP did not apply to religious associations. 219. Concerning the alleged violation of the right to freely assemble under Article 11 of the African Charter, the Respondent State submitted that this allegation was without merit especially when considering that the Defendants freely exercised this right for years. According to the Respondent State, until their arrest on criminal charges, they did so in their individual capacities and as members of the "Negotiation Committee" and the "Ustaz and Due's Association." Accordingly, there was no infringement on the freedom of assembly in this regard. 220. The Respondent State, therefore, requested the Commission to dismiss this communication for failure to comply with the Commission's decision on ad l~"'~ as well as failure to substantiate a meritorious communication. Acc Cfihg to "the "'o~\ ~ '" Respondent State the Complainants' arguments have been adjudicate l"l.dtherefore ..r, \ exhausted before the Federal High Court and Supreme Court. It is al ~ Respondent (' '. :z. .. CJ, 4. ... c,)~