compliant with a law whose foundation, rules, limits and norms have been established by the Constitution, and so its actions must be directed within the relevant prescribed rules, conditions, norms and limits. 161. The Respondent State submits that the state of emergency has been contested many times before courts, which is indicative of the stability and continued functioning of the State’s institutions, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. The Respondent State highlights a judicial precedent of the Court in 1990 which provides that where arrests under the Emergency Law are conducted without good reason, the decision is illegal and the administration must compensate the victim. The Respondent State submits that, as such, the Victim in the instant case could have challenged the legality of his arrest and requested compensation for the damages he suffered. Alleged violation of Articles 7 and 26 162. The Respondent State refutes the allegations that Egypt has violated Article 7(1) in conjunction with Article 26 of the Charter. 163. The Respondent State agrees that release orders were pronounced in favour of the Victim by courts staffed by judges from the ordinary judiciary. The Respondent State however submits that due to the continuing threat the Victim posed to the security and public order of the country, the arrest decision came successively, all based on the Emergency Law in effect at that time. The Respondent State thus submits that the Victim was not prevented by the authorities to have recourse to the courts. 164. The Respondent State submits that the Victim in contesting his detention as well as in seeking damages, could have had recourse to the administrative courts as arrests decisions under the Emergency Law are administrative decisions. 165. The Respondent State submits that while the Victim was provisionally detained in connection with lawsuit No⁰ 502 of 1994, the Victim was called from time to time for interrogations before the Public Prosecutor in the presence of his lawyer. The Respondent State alleges that the Victim was released after the interrogations and permitted to meet and task his lawyer to defend him and to submit applications to the competent courts. The Respondent State further submits that the Victim was always in touch with his lawyer, who was present in courts where the arrest and detention of the Victim was debated. Alleged violation of Article 16 166. The Respondent State submits that the Victim benefited from health care and was going repeatedly to the hospital where he underwent analysis and X-ray tests, and a lumbar and sacral cartilage slippage was uncovered. The Respondent State points out to a visit at the hospital on 8 February 2010. The Respondent State submits that the Victim was then offered the opportunity of being operated on, but refused. In support of this allegation, the Respondent State attaches the medical reports issued by the hospital where the Victim was treated. 24