present one. By referring the African Commission to the 1996 findings into the use of torture in Egypt, in which it concluded that “torture is systematically practiced by the security forces in Egypt, in particular by State Security Intelligence”,28 the Complainants argue that human rights mechanisms consistently point to widespread and systematic torture in places of detention in Egypt. The Complainants also refer the African Commission to the decision of the Committee Against Torture which found that “Egypt resorted to consistent and widespread use of torture against detainees” and that “[r]isk of such treatment was particularly high in the case of detainees held for political and security reasons.”29 117. The Complainants aver that under international human rights law, when a person is injured in detention or while under the control of security forces, there is a strong presumption that the person was subjected to torture or illtreatment. They argue that, it is incumbent on the state to provide a plausible explanation of how the injuries were caused.30 118. The Complainants also argue that, the Respondent State has failed to discharge this burden in that, they made no attempt to give satisfactory explanation of how the injuries were sustained, or to take any steps to investigate and address the surrounding circumstances. The Complainants contend further that, the trial court did nothing to follow up on questions raised in the FMA reports or the victims‟ testimonies. They also argue that the SSI officers who were called to testify against the defendants in court were not asked to confront a single question with regard to the alleged 28 Activities of the Committee against Torture pursuant to article 20 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: Egypt, 3 May 1996, UN doc. A/51/44, para. 220 29 Agiza v. Sweden (Comm. no. 233/2003), Committee against Torture, decision of 24 May 2005, UN doc. CAT/C/34/D/233/2003, para. 13.4. See also Human Rights Committee, Comments: Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add. 23, 9 August 1993, para. 10; Committee against Torture, Conclusions and Recommendations on the Fourth Periodic Report of Egypt, UN doc. CAT/C/CR/29/4 (2002), in particular para. 5. See also Amnesty International, “Egypt: Systematic Abuses in the Name of Security”, AI Index MDE 12/001/2007 (April 2007), at p. 18 (in support of the conclusion that “torture and other forms of ill-treatment are systematic in detention centres”.) 30 Colibaba v. Moldova (Appl. no. 29089/06), ECtHR, Judgment of 23 October 2007, para. 43. 30