24. The Complainants assert that during the interrogation session, the Second Victim agreed to sign a written confession recounting his role in the Taba bombings. They state that during this session, the State Security Prosecutor indicated on the interrogation sheet that there were no visible injuries on the body of the Second Victim. 25. According to the Complainants, the Second Victim was denied access to a lawyer during the interrogation sessions, which spanned a period of seven months and that during the session held on 19 March 2006, the second victim insisted on summoning lawyers to represent him and to that effect submitted the names and mobile phone numbers of two human rights lawyers. 26. The Complainants further submit that on 25 March 2006, the State Security Prosecutor presented a “complementary indictment” in relation to the Taba bombings in which the First Victim had been charged (Case No. 40/2005). 27. The Complainants state that the Second Victim also retracted his “confessions” before the court on 26 March 2006 when he informed the court that he had been tortured during his detention. The Complainants say that the court granted the Second Victim‟s request for a medical examination which took place two months later, nine months after the second victim‟s alleged torture. They state that the forensic medical report, dated 27 May 2006, noted “darker intersecting discolorations all over the back” as well as an unhealed fracture in one of the toes of his left foot. The Complainants 8