Submissions of the Respondent State on Admissibility 48. The Respondent State contends that the Communication should not be Admissible because the Complainants have failed to exhaust all local remedies. 49. The Respondent State argues that its domestic laws on torture, including the Constitution, the Egyptian Penal Code and the Egyptian Criminal Proceedings Code is consistent with the African Charter and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), and therefore sufficient to address complaints concerning torture. The Respondent State further lists national laws and decisions on state of emergency10 and adds that the African Charter does not address instances of states of emergency. 50. The Respondent State avers that the Victim did not provide any evidence of submission of his previous complaints, including the reference numbers of the complaints. The State adds that the Victim failed to re-submit his complaint after being told that copies of his previous complaints went missing during the January 2011 Revolution, as required by the provisions of the Legal Proceedings Act in instances of loss of documents. Supplementary Submissions of the Complainants on Admissibility 51. The Complainants submit that the Communication was submitted to the Commission while the Victim was in detention, having exhausted all adequate and potentially effective remedies available at that time. They state that the Admissibility of the case should be determined on the facts that existed at that time. 52. The Complainants further contend that there is no requirement in the African Charter which requires Victims to re-exhaust the same remedies that have already been exhausted, and found to be ineffective. They submit that it would unjustly penalise the Victim for the Respondent State’s failure to promptly investigate those complaints when they were made, and to maintain proper and secure copies of complaints regarding torture and poor conditions of detention. 53. The Complainants add that the Victim attempted to recover copies of his complaints, court orders and medical records after his release, but was informed that all the records were destroyed or lost during the revolution. 54. The Complainants contend that the Respondent State’s reference to general legal provisions fails to show how those legal provisions provide an adequate and effective remedy which is available to the Victim. They state that in Article 19 v Eritrea,11 the Commission held that it is insufficient for States to challenge the admissibility of a complaint by ‘merely list[ing] in abstracto the existence of remedies without relating them to the circumstances of the case, and without These include the 1958 Act No. 162 on State of Emergency, and judgments of the High Administrative Tribunal (Appeal No. 401, 17/7 of 1991 and No. 3, 22, sitting of 13/1/1990). 11 Communication 275/03 – Article 19 v Eritrea (2007) ACHPR para 73. 10 7