Complainants’ Observations on the Merits Submissions of the Respondent State Exhaustion of local remedies 167. The Complainants argue that the Respondent State’s arguments on the exhaustion of local remedies are neither necessary nor appropriate at this stage. The Complainants aver that the Commission has already determined the issue. 168. The Complainants submit that even if the Commission was to re-examine the admissibility of the Communication, there is nothing in the submission of the Respondent State which undermines the admissibility determination of the Commission. 169. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State’s claim that the Victim should have applied to the administrative courts ignores that these courts could not bring about the release of the Victim, but could only order compensation which is an insufficient remedy. The Complainants point to the alleged inadequacy of administrative courts, referring to the unsuccessful attempt in 2008, when the Victim’s lawyers brought a case before the Administrative Courts challenging the illegal detention of the Victim and demanding his release and compensation. The Complainants further submit that the claim of the Respondent State ignores the core issue in this case which is the fact that the Government for over 15 years has refused to implement the decisions of its own courts and that remedies have already become unduly delayed. 170. The Complainants urge the Commission to reject the Respondent State’s contention that the Victim did not re-file his complaint regarding his torture. Alleged violation of Article 5 171. The Complainants refute the Respondent State’s argument as to the lack of evidence to corroborate the allegations of torture. The Complainants submit that the Victim provided the Commission with substantial, direct, credible and consistent evidence, together with additional corroborating material, proving his torture and related abuses. The Complainants refer to the detailed and signed statement of the Victim; medical examinations, documents, and photographs; report of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; and non-governmental human rights reports. 172. The Complainants allege that the abuses described by the Victim and the evidence are consistent with a pattern and practice of abuse to which other detainees held under Egypt’s Emergency Law were regularly subjected, including the types of torture methods applied to other Emergency Law detainees, the detention conditions to which the Emergency Law detainees were subjected, the location where other Emergency Law detainees were held, and the time at which abused Emergency Law detainees were held. The Complainants further allege that most of the abuses suffered by the Victim are consistent with 25