138. The Respondent State submits that regardless of who is in power, the judicial and constitutional protection guaranteed by the Egyptian legal system remains available to the Victim who may still resort to competent judicial authorities. 139. The Respondent State avers that legislation in contradiction with the Constitution should be challenged before the Supreme Constitutional Court. 140. The Respondent State submits that the submission of the Complainants do not point out the local remedies available to the Victim. The Respondent State alleges that instead of advising the Victim, the aim of the Complainants was to achieve political gains against Egypt. Alleged violation of Article 5 141. The Respondent State submits that the allegations of torture are unsupported by evidence and their veracity is impossible to verify. The Respondent State submits that the evidence presented by the Complainants on torture is lacking, as they provided dispersed paper cuttings with no link to the complaints submitted. 142. The Respondent State submits that human rights reports cannot be used as evidence of torture. 143. The Respondent State highlights that the complaint contains data and reports that do not directly touch on the allegations. 144. The Respondent State highlights that the complaint does not explain the Victim’s background nor does it set out the reasons for the Victim’s presence in Pakistan and why he obtained Pakistani nationality. The Respondent State submits that the Victim is a dangerous member of a terrorist organisation aimed at undermining and disturbing the stability and security of the state. The Respondent further submits that in light of the continuity of his threat and danger, and his attempt to implement criminal plans, some precautionary and legal actions were taken during the state of emergency in accordance with the Emergency Law. The Respondent adds that the Victim was released on 17 March 2011. Alleged violation of Articles 5 and 1 145. The Respondent State submits that it is absolutely impossible for the competent authorities to verify the authenticity of the Victim’s allegations regarding the submission of complaints, and the State is therefore unable to provide the Commission with information on the matter. The Respondent State refers to the loss of information following the revolution of January 2011 which led to the storming of most Egyptian prisons and the burning and looting of Public Prosecution headquarters and police stations. 146. The Respondent State submits that since 1971, successive Egyptian constitutions have included articles on the prevention of torture and ill-treatment in accordance with the international human rights instruments to which Egypt is a party. The Respondent State submits that the commitment of Egypt is reflected 21