performance of their duties, particularly with regard to the rights of detainees. As for the immunities the Directives state that in case a member of the NISS commits a crime in violation to any of the laws in force and there is a prima facie evidence that justifies the filing of a charge, the NISS will refer this member to the [ordinary] court or to the non-summary court of the NISS as the law may decide. 36. Accordingly, the Respondent State is of the position that the Complainants, in this Communication, neither approached any Prosecution Attorney Office to initiate a case against the alleged perpetrators from the NISS nor did they file a complaint to the Director of NISS through the prescribed channels. The Respondent State notes that there is complaints' office belonging to the NISS and directly affiliated to the Director General of the NISS established since 2007 and receives complaints and queries from the public for 24 hours. Many cases have been received through this office and actions were taken on them. 37. The Respondent State concludes by stating that the Complainants could also approach the Constitutional Court if they have been denied the right to litigation which is enshrined in Article 35 of the Interim National Constitution of the Sudan 2005 which provides that the right to litigation shall be guaranteed for all persons; no person shall be denied the right to resort to justice . Supplementary submission of the Complainants 38. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State's claim that there is an effective complaints procedure before the Constitutional Court is not adduced by any evidence to show either the legal basis for the purported procedure and its effectiveness. Furthermore, they submit that in the instant case the judges of the Constitutional Court did not in fact monitor the detention of the applicants in terms of being available to receive complaints adding that there are no cases in which the Constitutional Court is known to have ordered complaints against NISS members to be investigated, and no known practice of investigations and prosecutions of NISS members upon the direction of the Court. 39. Regarding Article 51 (3) of the NISS Act (hereafter NISS Act ), 2010, (Article 31(3) of the NISS Act, 1999 8 ), the Complainants aver that the existence of this law does not mean that violations of its provisions do not occur, and that the Respondent State appears to assume that the existence of a law precludes any need to provide remedies for its violations with clear channel of accountability for erring officials and access to due remedies for victims. 40. As to the existence of a Directive from the Director of the NISS issued on 12 th August 2007, the Complainants submit that there is no information available as to how this internal circular has been implemented and adherence to it monitored. The Complainants also aver that the Respondent State does not provide any evidence that the Prosecution Attorney was requested to review, or in fact reviewed, the conditions of custody of the applicants in the instant case. 41. The Complainants state that in order to lodge complaints against NISS officers the Prosecution attorney must request the lifting of immunities of NISS members from the NISS Director and the Director must accede to this request. According to the Complainants, it is only the Director of the NISS who can lift the immunities granted to NISS members under the NISS Acts, and that there are no procedures available before Sudanese courts which can compel the Director of the NISS to make a decision on such a request, order a review of a decision not to lift immunities, or direct him to respond in the affirmative. According to them, a decision by the Director of the NISS to lift the imunity is therefore an administrative or political decision not a judicial one, and that there is no provision in Sudanese law governing how it is exercised. 42. The Complainants claim that they are not aware of any prosecution - let alone conviction - of an NISS member for torture 9 , despite the numerous allegations of torture which have been documented, inter alia , by the United Nations and international and national human rights organizations 10 43. The Complainants submit that the primary role of the complaints office of the NISS is to receive applications to visit persons in NISS detention, and where complaints are lodged, the information is simply 5