internal investigation as well as interviews with eye-witnesses and others in the vicinity of the park at the time demonstrates a lack of meaningful attempt to investigate and provide redress in this case. 57. The Complainants allege that various attempts were made by the protesters to reopen the file, but to no avail. They state that on 19 June 2006 an application15 for the case to be re-opened was rejected orally by the District Attorney’s clerk, without forwarding it to the District Attorney, on the basis that the Complainant was not a party to the original complaint. The Complainants argue that since the names of the protesters were not listed on the initial complaint, which was submitted on behalf of all the protesters shortly after the incident, it is difficult to understand how being named on such petition became a legitimate pre-requisite for requesting reopening of the case. 58. The Complainants allege that on 7 August 2006 a petition for civil remedies was submitted by the Association of Human Rights Legal Aid on behalf of the protesters to the Clerk of the District Attorney of North Giza. They state that the clerk rejected this petition because the petitioners’ names were not included in the initial police report detailing the incident. 59. The Complainants state that on 4 September 2006, a further complaint was submitted to the District Attorney’s Office on behalf of three other protesters injured during the attack. The Complainants state that the petition requested that the case be re-opened and investigations conducted. The request, they state was rejected as, according to the District Attorney, Procedural Law only allows those whose names appear in the initial complaint and those with a direct interest in the matter to lodge an appeal. They state that since the names of the three protesters were not mentioned in the original complaint (as noted above because no names appeared on that first, general complaint), they had no right to object to the District Attorney’s decision. They also state that a report in the Alhayat Newspaper of 26 April 2007 indicated that the Egyptian authorities declined to reopen the investigation as requested by the UN Committee on Migrant Workers. Submitted by one of the Victim’s representatives, Ashraf Ruxi, on behalf of Waddah Bin Idris, one of the protestors in the Park on 30 December 2005. 15 13