Complainant claimed that the Victim was again promised by an investigation officer on 11 October 2011 that he would be released within ten days, which did not materialize. As the security personnel did not fulfil their promises of releasing the Victim, the Complainant alleged that the Victim staged two more hunger strikes, for which he was rather threatened with a charge of attempted suicide instead of being released. Within this period, the Complainant submitted that the Victim was treated for low blood sugar level, back pain, and tingling foot, among others, but was still not released but moved from one cell to another. The Complainant aver that the Victim's access to medical care, which was paid for by his family, was also delayed on many occasions, and he was denied hospital admission which was recommended for his recovery. 16. Following the expiration of his detention extension on 16 June 2012, the Complainant submits that the Victim again protested his continued detention with another hunger strike on 20 June 2012, as a result of which prison authorities transferred him to the Office of Crimes against the State Prosecutor on 21 June 2012, where he was taken to see the Prosecutor. The Complainant avers that by this time, a crowd made up of the Victim's family and several human rights activists had started a protest outside the premises of the Office of Crimes against the State Prosecutor, demanding his release. Upon the presentation of the Victim, the Complainant claims that the Prosecutor indicated that he was unaware that the Victim had been re-detained by NSS on 14 August 2011, and then allowed him to see his family without restriction for an hour, as well as his lawyer for the first time, before he was returned to his cell. 17. The Complainant further submits that the Victim was brought before another prosecutor on 24 June 2012, who demanded that he call off another protest for his release which was ongoing outside the Office of the Prosecutor, which, through his lawyer, he agreed to, on the condition that he should either be released on bail or be tried, and that he should be transferred to a hospital due to his deteriorating health. The prosecutor allegedly agreed, and the Victim was transferred to a hospital. 18. Finally, the Complainant alleges that the Victim was eventually released on bail on 27 June 2012 on the condition that he would obtain one guarantor, would not leave the country, and would report to the State Prosecutor's Office once a week, accompanied by his guarantor. Following this, the guards watching the Victim were withdrawn from the hospital where he had been admitted, and he was discharged from the hospital on 03 July 2012. 19. The Complainant contends that the Victim should not be required to exhaust local remedies due to several factors that hinder access to effective domestic remedies, such as legislative limitations, fear of reprisal, and the lack of any action by the Respondent State despite being aware of his allegations of torture.