47. The Complainant avers that the statutory legal framework in Sudan for emergencies is set out in the Emergency and Protection of Public Safety Act(1997), which does not provide for a right to habeas corpus, and additionaIJy, if read with Section 15 of the Emergency and Public Safety Bylaw, 1998, "permits preventive arrest and detention on the basis of vague grounds and with no provision limiting the duration of detention or providing for judicial oversight", thus authorising prolonged or even indefinite detention without charge or judicial review. 48. The Complainant submits that he was detained between 10 June 2014 and 19 September 2014 without charge, and that at no time during his arrest or detention was he brought before a judicial authority; that no right to habeas corpus was made available to him; and that he was detained pursuant to the Emergency Law of West Kordofan State, placing his release at the sole discretion of the governor of this State; that he was not provided with his own lawyer and not given the opportunity to contact his family until his final days of detention. Therefore, he submits that he was unable to challenge the legality of his detention before the domestic courts while he was in detention. 49. In relation to the second argument, namely that there are no effective or suliicient remedies to challenge the actions of the NISS, the Complainant refers to previous decisions in which the Commission had recognised that the broad immunities provided to the NISS in Sudan render ineffective any local remedies that theoretically exist in this regard, through preventing effective investigation and prosecution of violations by NISS officials. 7 The Complainant refers to Article 52(3) of the National Security Act, which provides that "no civil or criminal procedures may be brought against a member or association unless upon the approval of the Director [of the NISS]," stating further that there is no way for an individual to petition the Sudanese courts to compel the Director of the NISS to lift the immunities of his officers. He alleges, in addition, that there is no way for a person or court to initiate a judicial review of a decision not to lift immunities.