under its 2014 Constitution which guarantees the right to dignity, and prohibits all forms of torture, and ill-treatment of arrested or detained persons. 147. The Respondent State further contends that the 2014 Constitution provides that there is no statute of limitation for torture. The Respondent State submits that the Constitution further provides that there is no statute of limitation for both civil and criminal proceedings for an assault on the personal freedoms or sanctity of the life of citizens, along with other general rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the law. The provision further adds that the state guarantees just compensation for those who have been assaulted. The Respondent State submits that this ensures that no criminal goes unpunished and that the victim accesses compensation for damages inflicted, even when the complaint occurs at a later stage due to fear of the victim. The Respondent State submits that Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code also stipulates that there is no statute of limitation for acts of torture. 148. The Respondent State avers that in addition to Articles 126 and 282 of the Penal Code, other provisions also criminalise torture. The Respondent State therefore submits that if any violation is proven, the fault cannot be attributed to a legislative failure as the violation is punishable according to the Egyptian legal system. 149. The Respondent State submits that the Penal Code criminalises imprisonment without reason and the punishment of a person more than necessary under Articles 127 and 280. The Respondent State submits that the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the courts may not consider a statement issued by an accused or a witness under duress. 150. The Respondent State submits that Egypt is committed to its international obligation to eradicate torture as evidenced by its laws and the judicial pronouncements of the Egyptian judiciary. 151. The Respondent State argues that the Penal Code does not contain a definition of torture but generally mentions it, allowing for a broader interpretation to include all forms of torture. 152. The Respondent State avers that there is no direct and confirmed link between the Victim’s allegations of torture and Article 126 of the Penal Code related to torture. 153. The Respondent State argues that the Victim did not renew his application by forwarding his complaints when he learned that his previous complaints went missing during the events of January 2011, in accordance with the rules regulating cases of missing documents under the Criminal Procedure Code. The Respondent submits that as a result, investigations on the allegations of torture have not been carried out by the competent authorities. The Respondent adds that the Victim however still has the right to renew his claims by forwarding all available evidence and arguments, and taking legal action under the abovementioned legislative and constitutional regime. Alleged violation of Article 6 22