129. The Complainants submit that in 2008, Egyptian authorities transferred the Victim to a prison in a remote area in the Western Desert, hundreds of kilometres away from his family’s home in Cairo. 130. The Complainants aver that the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the Victim for over fifteen years meant that he was also unable to see his children in Pakistan, one who was newly born and another who was about three years old when he was first detained. The Complainants add that his enforced separation from his children was unjustifiable and thus a violation of his right to family life as protected under Article 18 of the Charter. Alleged violation of Article 1 131. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State has not taken steps to provide compensation or rehabilitation for the violations that the Victim has suffered, in violation of Article 1 in conjunction with the above Articles. 132. The Complainants aver that having failed to acknowledge the violations of the Victim’s rights and failing to initiate an investigation based upon the Victim’s complaints, the Government has not provided the Victim with proper redress 133. The Complainants further aver that the Victim does not receive rehabilitation despite continuing to suffer the impact of torture and extended detention. Respondent State’s Submission on the Merits Preliminary Observations Exhaustion of local remedies 134. In its Merits submissions, the Respondent State submits that the Victim did not exhaust local remedies. 135. The Respondent State submits that following the events in January 2011 where prisons, police stations and courts were stormed and destroyed, it is impossible for the authorities to be sure of the authenticity of the Victims’ complaints and of any follow-up to those complaints. The Respondent State submits that the Victim can still follow up his claims before the Egyptian legal system as there is no statute of limitation for the crime of torture. 136. The Respondent State submits that although this avenue is still open to the Victim, the Victim has not resorted to the administrative court to appeal his detention and request for compensation. 137. The Respondent State submits that the Victim should have brought his case before the National Council for Human Rights, a national independent mechanism which operates in accordance with the Paris Principles. The Respondent State submits that the National Council for Human Rights is competent to receive complaints, to orient them to the competent authorities and to effect follow-up. 20