crime, whose criminal and civil lawsuit is not liable to prescription. The State shall grant a fair compensation to the victim of such an assault.” 147. Concerning the allegation that the victims were denied visits while in detention, the Respondent State submit that the relatives of Ossama Mohamed al- Nakhlawy visited him 17 times, the relatives of Mohamed Gayez Sabah visited him 30 times and the relatives of Yunis Mohamed Abu Gareer visited him 16 times until April 2007. These, argues the Respondent State shows that the allegations of the Complainants are baseless. 148. The Respondent State avers that its penal code criminalizes acts of torture in Articles 126 and 282, and that the same code further criminalizes unjustified detention imposes penalties exceeding those decided by Articles 127 and 280. 149. The Respondent State contends that, the assessment, value and reliance on any confession as a piece of evidence in any criminal proceedings is an issue entirely at the discretion of the Court. It is argued that it is the judge who in exercise of this discretion decides whether or not to accept and rely on the confession as reliable evidence for conviction. 150. It is contended by the Respondent State that the judge‟s competence to assess the value of a confession entails as well his competence to interpret it, define its significance and explore its motives. This principle, argues the Respondent State, applies whether the confession was judicial or non judicial, whether it took place in the process of factual investigation, interrogation or even before a normal person. The judge, argues the Respondent State, does not rely on a confession if he is not convinced with it even in the case where the accused person insists on his confession. In such a case, the judge may issue an acquittal and clarify in the causation why he did not take the confession into consideration. If it is proved that the confession was made 43