Selim, was the one who dragged her from the taxi with the Third Victim, meanwhile, the Third Victim later retracted her submissions to the African Commission, indicating that she discovered a year later that Nabil Selim was not the officer who dragged them from the taxi. The Second Victim also mentioned in her submissions to the African Commission that she had been sprayed in her face by an assailant, a matter which she never mentioned to the PPO; ii. The Third Victim also retracted her accusations of Officer Nabil Selim after one year of the incident, and according to the Respondent State, the PPO had established beyond any doubt that he could not have been at the scene at the time of the protest; iii. The Fourth Victim alleged to the African Commission that she was beaten by Mr. Mohammed, El Deed from the NDP, and this was never mentioned to the PPO. She also alleged in her submissions before the African Commission that when she went to the hospital the following thy, doctors insisted on calling the police, and the police refused to investigate based on jurisdictional reasons. This she never mentioned to the PPO.23 98. On the basis of the above, the Respondent State declares that the Victims' former accusations were unfounded and simply made to support their Complaint. According to the Respondent State, the statements of the Victims are conflicting and show inaccuracy in identifying the persons who allegedly assaulted them. 99. The Respondent State submits further that inconsistency also existed between the medical reports evidencing the injuries, but this is not substantiated. 100. The Respondent State also refutes the allegations that there was discrimination because assaults were inflicted on the Victims because of the "mere fact of being women." It argues that the assembly of the two parties in the riots included men and women other than the Victims. 101. It submits further that the Egyptian Constitution affirms the principle of equality between men and women and the law provides many privileges for women to safeguard their effective participation in the community as a matter of affirmative action for the benefit of women. It states that Egyptian society rejects any form of degrading or inhuman treatment. 102. The Respondent state also outlines the procedures taken by the PPO during investigation of the alleged violations. It explains that: i. The PPO heard in detail the testimony of all parties, victims, and witnesses concerning the incident; ii. The PPO referred the injured male and female victims to El-Hilal El-Ahmer Hospital, and attached twelve medical reports to the investigation reports, after confirming that the reports have been reviewed; iii. The PPO permitted each person who sustained injuries as a result of the crime to institute civil proceedings during investigations in application of Article 199 bis of the Criminal Procedure Law; iv. On 13 June 2005, the PPO viewed the video tapes and CDs submitted by the Complainants and it was revealed that none of the accused were present in front of the Press Syndicate or Saad Zaghloul Status, except Mohamed El Deeb; v. The PPO summoned all the accused whose names were included in the investigations and interrogated them in detail; vi. Investigations carried out by the PPO concluded the crime of sexual molestation (exposing private parts, sexual harassment and touching the genitals). 109. In its additional submissions, the Respondent State disputes the allegation that the investigation undertaken from the Complaints filed by the Victims, before the PPO as well as the decision by the Appeal Chamber upholding the decision of the PPO, lacked impartiality, objectivity or integrity. 110. The Respondent State maintains that the PPO duly investigated the incident. It emphasizes that the investigations carried out have all the specified safeguards for criminal investigation according to the Egyptian legal regime, particularly the impartiality and confidentiality of the investigations, the presence of 9