into the circumstances of death at the hands of state agents, responsibility for the deaths and whether they ought to be prosecuted. The Complainants allege that inquiries by the Victims were not responded to, that there is no evidence of any inquiry into who was responsible for the killings and aver that this failure undermines the effectiveness of any criminal law provisions put in place by the State to protect the right to life. 97. The Complainants argue that the duty of inquiry in a case where a person loses their life at the hands of a State agent is triggered automatically without the need for such a request to be made by affected persons. Notwithstanding this, the Complainants allege that steps were in fact taken to seek such an inquiry into the circumstances of the police assaults which led to the death of the wife and son of the First Victim. 98. The Complainants aver that a petition was submitted on 30 December 2005 by “Egyptian activists” to the District Attorney of North Giza Department on behalf of “all protestors affected by the park events.” The Complainants allege that on 3 June 2006 the District Attorney declared that the case had been closed, since the security officials responsible for the violations had not been identified. According to the Complainants the District Attorney declared that under Egyptian law there is no description of the alleged crime of protestors losing their lives while resisting riot police. The Complainants allege that the District Attorney also stated that the number of dead had not been declared. 99. The Complainants allege that on 19 June 2006 an application was submitted by Ashraf Ruxi (Representative of the Victims) on behalf of Wada Bin Idris (the Sixth Victim), which was rejected by the District Attorney’s clerk, who allegedly declined to forward it to the District Attorney on the ground that the Victim was not a party to the original complaint of 30 December 2005 and thus the application was inadmissible. 100. The Complainants aver that on 4 September 2006 a petition was submitted to the District Attorney’s office to reopen the case and conduct investigations on behalf of three protestors injured during the attack. The Complainants allege that the request was rejected on the basis of Procedural Law, which allows only those whose names appear in the initial complaint and have a direct interest to lodge an appeal. In this case, the Complainants allege that they were informed 24