32. The Complainants state that all the victims informed the court during the trial that they were subjected to beatings, electric shocks and different forms of cruel and degrading treatment, and that their requests for referral to the Forensic Medical Authority were consistently denied by the Prosecution Office, but on a referral by the court the examination confirmed the presence of several injuries but was unable to decisively conclude the cause of injuries due to the long period of time that had elapsed. 33. The Complainants allege that the repeated requests of the victims to obtain official copies of the transcript of the hearing of the trial were reportedly denied by the court. 34. The Complainants aver that despite the obvious anomaly of the trial of the Victims and the objections raised by the defence with respect to procedural impropriety, the court proceeded with the trial and adjourned on September 2006 to 30 November 2006 to seek the Mufti‟s (Religious Adviser‟s) view on the proceedings in order to deliver its judgement. They state that according to Article 381 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court is only obliged to seek the Mufti‟s view when it intends to issue a death sentence, indicating that the court had already reached verdict to sentence the Victims to death. 35. According to the Complainants the victims were charged with; 10