invoked as evidence in any proceedings, including extradition proceedings, have been made as a result of torture shifts to the State,75 138. The Complainants assert that the victims in this case all raised allegations of torture and ill-treatment and that these allegations are at least consistent with the circumstances of their case, such as the incommunicado nature of their detention and the reports of the FMA which, at a minimum, indicate a risk of ill-treatment. The Complainants also state that despite these concerns, and the apparent inconsistency and unreliability of the evidence, the “confessions” were admitted as evidence and appear to have formed at least part of the basis of their convictions and the imposition of the death penalty. The reliance on such evidence, they argue, violates Article 7 of the Charter. 139. With regards to the right to appeal, the Complainants aver that Article 12 of the Egyptian Emergency Law stipulates that “It is not allowed in any form to appeal the decisions pronounced by State Security Courts.” They argue that these laws, and its application in practice, violate Article 7(1) (a) of the Charter, which provides for „the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force.‟ 140. The Complainants also submit that States Parties should guarantee the right to appeal as well as provide for a genuine and timely review of the cases, including the facts and the law”,76 and that in extreme cases where life is at risk States Parties should take steps to make appeals mandatory especially in death penalty cases.77 The Complainants refer the Commission to its 75 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; UN doc. A/61/259 (2006), Annex, para. 63. 76 See Principles and Guidelines on Fair Trial,(ACHPR) Sec N(10)(a)(1). 77 Id, Sec N (10)(b). 40