The Complainants submit that the Victim had no idea how long he would be detained and if he would ever be released. 108. The Complainants allege that while detainees should be able to challenge the legality of their detention before the State Security Emergency Courts (the Emergency Courts), in practice detainees have little access to lawyers or legal services. 109. The Complainants submit that authorities sought to conceal the Victim’s detention by misleading the family as to whether he was detained at all, and systematically transferring him between different detention sites, with no indication that his detention at these sites was registered, to avoid complying with release orders. Alleged violation of Articles 7(1)(a) and 26 110. The Complainants submit that the Victim was denied access to an independent and competent tribunal, in violation of Articles 7 and 26 of the Charter. They add that the Government’s refusal to respect at least 15 court orders for his release occurred within a legal framework that systematically undermined the independence, authority and competence of these courts. Lack of enforcement of court release orders 111. The Complainants aver that the Commission has found violations of Articles 7 and 26 where governments failed to implement court orders against them, including orders for release of a detainee. 112. The Complainants submit that Article 123 of the Penal Code holds that “any public official who uses the authority of his position to […] obstruct the execution of a ruling or order issued by a court or any competent authority” shall be detained and removed from office. The Complainants add that “every time the Ministry of Interior refused to implement any of the [Victim’s] court release orders, it was violating Egyptian law as well.” Lack of independence of State Security Emergency Courts 113. The Complainants allege that the Ministry of Interior’s disregard for at least 15 court release orders was a product of the Executive’s control over the Emergency Courts and the Court’s systematic lack of independence. They aver that the Emergency Courts, which presided over the Victim’s case, fall far short of the Commission’s standards on impartiality and independence, particularly as outlined under the Commission’s Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial). 114. The Complainants allege that the Commission has previously assessed these courts in Communication 334/06 - Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v. Egypt, and described them in the following terms: “The victims were 17