tried before the Supreme State Security Emergency Court, whose competence and procedures fall far short of the above standards [the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial]”. 115. The Complainants allege that the judgments of these courts fall completely under the authority of the President of the Republic, who through the Emergency Law, has the power to: suspend a case before it is submitted to the Emergency Court or order the temporary release of the accused person before referral of the case to the Emergency Court; declare decisions of the Emergency Court as final through his approval and these decisions may then neither be appealed nor challenged before any other court in Egypt once approved by the President; and commute, change, suspend or cancel any decision, or order the release of defendants or the retrial of the case before another court. 116. The Complainants further submit that the composition of the Emergency Court and the procedure for appointments to it, illustrate its lack of independence. The Complainants submit that while the Court is normally composed of three judges of the Court of Appeal, the President of the Republic may order that the Court be formed of one judge of the Court of Appeal and two officers of the army, or simply decide that it be formed of three military officers. Alleged violation of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) 117. The Complainants aver that the Victim’s detention for 15 years without bringing him to trial violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal under Article 7(1)(d) and his right to be presumed innocent under Article 7(1)(b). They add that during that period he was also prevented from meeting with his lawyer to prepare any defence in violation of Article 7(1)(c). 118. The Complainants submit that the Victim was detained without any charges against him, much less an opportunity to answer them. The Complainants submit that this amounts to a violation of the right to be presumed innocent under article 7(1)(b) of the Charter. 119. The Complainants submit that throughout the 15 years of administrative detention, the Victim was denied adequate access to his lawyer to prepare his defence in violation of article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. The Complainants submit that the Victim was only afforded the most limited opportunities to see a lawyer during his initial 18 months in detention, and then was not permitted to see a lawyer at all. The Complainants allege that when an advocate attempted to visit the Victim in prison in late 2008, the prison authorities denied the advocate entry and confiscated the authorisation to visit. Alleged violation of Article 8 120. The Complainants allege that the authorities denied the Victim on multiple occasions the right to practice his religion while in detention, contrary to Article 8. The Complainants submit that the prolonged periods of being handcuffed and 18