Systemic deficiencies in domestic law and accountability structure 179. The Complainants allege that while Egypt claims its new Constitution prohibits torture, the Government has neither modified the domestic offences criminalizing torture nor shown how these are compliant with international human rights law. 180. The Complainants submit that the Government did not address or dispute the pattern of impunity for torture or the restrictions on the rights of victims where the perpetrator is an official. 181. The Complainants submit that while the Government claims that torture is punished by other provisions in the Penal Code, it did not explain which provisions it is referring to. Moreover, the Complainants submit that a reference to other unspecified provisions cannot correct the deficiencies identified in Article 126. 182. The Complainants reject the Respondent State’s argument that the crime of torture in Egypt is in compliance with the African Charter. The Complainants submit that the new Constitution continues to fail to set out a full definition of torture and other ill-treatment. The Complainants submit that the new Constitution did not apply during the period the Victim was tortured, requested investigations of his torture, and lodged his complaint with the Commission. The Complainants submit that the changes to the Constitution do not remedy the lack of criminal provisions under which those who committed torture against a detainee could be prosecuted and held accountable. Alleged violation of Article 6 183. The Complainants submit that the Government has not addressed the detailed account by the Victim that he was actually never released in response to numerous court orders, the evidence of a pattern of failing to release people in similar positions, or the arguments for why this constituted a violation of rights. The Complainants reject the claim by the Respondent State that the Victim was released, and point out that the Government presented no evidence to support this claim. The Complainants add that the Victim was merely moved from one detention facility to another when a court ordered his release, to avoid complying with the court order. 184. The Complainants submit that the continuous cycle of release and re-arrest under the Emergency Law based on the Executive’s discretion and without judicial authorisation only highlights the arbitrary nature of his detention and the system that authorised it. 185. The Complainants submit that the Ministry of Interior’s disregard of 15 court release orders only highlights the Executive’s control over the Emergency Courts and the Courts’ systematic lack of independence. The Complainants further submit that in practice a person may be held indefinitely under the regime of the Emergency Law. The Complainants aver that none of these characteristics are disputed by the Government other than in the broadest of terms. 27