(~c~~) A( H P R . em.IXI) _" Afncan COrT'HT1fSSIOn on " Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility account to the prosecutor and judge of the abuse they suffered/'? To this effect, the First Victim stated her first attempt to complain before the military public prosecutor about the violations she had suffered in the military prison was denied, only to be accepted later on and the accused military doctor charged with an only public act of indecency under Article 278 of the Penal Code (as well as insubordination), an offence associated with a maximum prison sentence of one year. 76. Apart from alleged inadequacy in the law, the Complainants also submitted that the investigation and trial taking place under the Code of Military Justice, prevented the First Victim from pursuing a civil remedy before the military tribunal and was relegated to being a mere witness in the case. She was therefore also prevented from appealing the subsequent decision by the Supreme Military Tribunal to the Supreme Court of Military Appeals, as Article 43 of the Co~e allows only the military prosecutor or the defendant to appeal the decision.t! 77. She further submitted that she experienced a substantial delay in her attempt to access justice in response to the forced genital examination and other abuse with her two lawsuits getting postponed as the Government never wanted to investigate not to raise the issue of virginity tests. And worse still, she was subjected to threatening phone calls following her attempts to access justice in response to the abuse, and she notes that the criminal justice system of the Respondent State was unable to offer adequate protection for her safety. 32 78. Concerning sexual violence, the Complainants submitted that the Egyptian criminal justice system in practice completely prevented the Victims from pursuing justice. This is because the forced genital examinations of the seven female detainees were considered in court as one criminal act, even though multiple Complainants were involved, for the' apparent purpose of seeking to protect the accused from double jeopardy and to prevent the possibility of conflicting judgments on the same allegations. The Second Victim was precluded from pursuing a case against the military doctor as he had been acquitted in the trial ensuing from the First Victim's claim, and this decision had not been repealed. 30 See paragraph 68 of the Submission. 31 See, para 70 of the Victim submission on merit 32 Ibid para 77-8 161 P age :.t(f;la~~ Africant,,) Union\'fi