The Complainant exhausted his last appeal in March 1991. Facts According to the Government of Egypt 7. The government agrees that on the date in question the Complainant was arrested in the transit lounge at Cairo airport, and that the visa for Egypt was stamped in his passport only so that he could be admitted into Egypt for investigations of the case, but that the time at which he acquired the visa was found irrelevant by the courts. The government representative stated at the 19th Session that the transit area is "a free zone for customs only", not for crime, and under the anti-drug convention of New York, States parties may not permit individuals to carry drugs into another State party. 8. The government states that the validity of the Complainant's arrest in the transit lounge was raised by his lawyer during his trial, and that this was his first grounds for overturning his conviction on appeal, but the Supreme Court refused his appeal and the conviction became final. 9. The government states that the Complainant then availed himself of a special process by which appeal to the attorney general is possible, and raised the point that the confession attributed to him was not valid. The government said that in the attorney general's review of the case it was found that the court did recognise that the Complainant had denied guilt in the case; no confession was used. 10. The government states that the Complainant had access to all the protections of Egyptian law, that during the investigations he was represented by a private attorney, a representative of the Nigerian consulate, and during the trial he had a lawyer chosen by the bar association and paid for by the court. As evidenced by the appeals brought before the High Court, the Supreme Court, and the Court of Cassation, the lawyer did a competent job. 11. The government states that the Complainant was tried and convicted under the 1961 Egyptian drug law, which was in force in 1986. This law was revised in 1995, but the changes made the law harsher and would not be to the advantage of the Complainant. 12. The government further claims that the communication is inadmissible because the Working Group of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the UN decided not to take any action in respect of a communication from Mr Njoku.