committed by the Sudanese protesters themselves. It states that these crimes occurred due to protesters’ refusal to adhere to the repeated warnings to disperse. Such refusal led to protestors falling over and consequently asphyxia occurred which caused the death of some persons as well as injury including injury of some policemen. It concludes that these events are not related by any means to any violations of their rights as far as the African Charter is concerned. 68. The Respondent State further avers that none of the injured Sudanese who were questioned in the investigations of the General Prosecution Authority accused anyone in particular of causing their injuries. In addition, the Respondent State contends, none of the injured or the families of the deceased demanded any compensation for the damage caused or sought civil remedies. It reiterates that the fact that criminal charges had been dropped does not mean that the injured or the families of the deceased cannot seek civil remedies. 69. It further states that none of the Victims submitted any evidence or information to the police or the General Prosecution Authority that may help in identifying the perpetrators – and even whether these perpetrators were among the protesters or others who caused the incident. It states that the many requests submitted to the General Prosecution Authority by some of the NGOs calling for investigation by the General Prosecution Authority did not include any new evidence or information related to the incident. 70. 62. The Respondent State concludes that the complaints submitted to the esteemed Commission are unacceptable and are untrue as they lack any evidence. The Complainants are holders of refugee cards who enjoy legal status and permanently reside in Egypt and who were supposed to raise awareness to the other protestors and enlighten them of the law. Oral Submission to the Commission 71. At the 44th Ordinary Session of the Commission, the parties made oral submissions to the Commission. However, no new facts were adduced and is was basically a restatement of what was already contained in their Admissibility briefs. 16