this treatment, which was inflicted by state officials on the victims, which intended to elicit confessions and information, clearly meets the torture threshold. 114. The Complainants also argue that, although the context of the Victims incommunicado detention and interrogation is such that available evidence is necessarily limited, the allegations of torture and ill-treatment are supported by the victims‟ independent testimonies of similar ill-treatment. According to the Complainants, the fact that the victims were held incommunicado, hidden from the outside world during the 6-9 months of pre-trial detention, and that access to medical professionals was persistently denied until during trial itself is indicative of ill-treatment. They submit that, the irregular nature of the “interrogation” sessions which is also consistent with the decision to interrogate late at night is a form of ill-treatment. 115. The Complainants submit that the Forensic Medical Report, following the examination of the first victim on 5 July 2005, nearly nine months after his injuries were sustained, noted “healings” and “dark discolorations” on his right and left forearms, right elbow, left thigh, upper left leg and left hip joint. The second report of the FMA of 27 May 2006, following examination of the second and third victims also nearly nine months after their torture, found that the Second victim had a “darker intersecting discolorations” all over his back, as well as an unhealed fracture in a left foot toe and that the third victim had dark discolorations in the chest, abdomen and upper arms. The Complainants concede that, in both cases the government examiners concluded that the long time lapse between being examined and the injuries made it impossible to determine with certainty the reason, manner or time of such injuries.” 116. The Complainants aver that their allegations are consistent with reports of the systemic nature of torture by security forces in Egypt in cases such as the 29