182. The Complainants allege that to date, no attempts have been made by the Egyptian authorities to bring to account any of the law enforcement officials responsible for the human rights violations which occurred in the park, and that no investigation or independent inquiry into the events has been carried out. While noting that there is no responsibility on affected persons to request for an inquiry as it should be triggered automatically by the events, they refer to three separate occasions on which petitions were made, first on behalf of all the protesters and thereafter on behalf of specific persons. The Complainants allege that the initial case was declared closed on the basis that the security officials responsible for the violations had not been identified, and that under Egyptian law there is no description of the alleged crime of protestors losing their lives while resisting riot police. The further submissions were not considered since the specific people had not been identified in the original request which had been brought on behalf of “all the protesters affected”. 183. The State in response asserts that the allegation that Egypt had failed to conduct a proper and impartial investigation is unsound. They state that police officers opened an official enquiry into the deaths, injuries and damage to public property and that the evidence was sent to the GPA. According to the State the report of the GPA concluded that the charges of premeditated murder and use of brutality against the Egyptian police would be dropped, “because the perpetrator is not identified according to the testimony of the victims who did not name the perpetrator” and instructed the police to continue to investigate the matter internally. 184. The Respondent State in addition submits that the deaths were attributed to stampede and pandemonium. In response to the Complainant’s prayer for compensation, the Respondent State indicates that Victims can resort to the Courts to claim compensation for harm suffered in accordance with the rules of criminal, civil and administrative liability, and that the Public Prosecutor’s statement that no grounds exist for a criminal prosecution because the culprit is unidentified does not constitute an impediment for the Victim to filing for a reinvestigation if fresh evidence emerges or in a civil claim. 185. Firstly, the Commission has to note that particularly in relation to the right to life, the duty is on the State to initiate investigations and ensured that they are 49