f{:!!';' AC H P R \' ' (,,'/JJ " (In>:.H,1i'.. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility case that implicated at least four generals from the Supreme Council of Armed Forces, namely, Generals Etman, Assar, Sisi and Roweini, who had admitted that virginity tests or forced genital examinations were a routine practice. At the same time, General Adel Morsy, the head of the military judiciary and the direct superior of the judge sitting in the military court in question, had completely denied in December 2012 that such practices take place, stating that there -was no decision in the first place to conduct virginity tests and no provision for such a procedure in the regulations of military prisons.U" 133. The complainant noting the significance of General Morsy's comments cites the Human Rights Watch observation in regard that given the status in the milita~'Yhierarchy and authority over the military judge in the trial, such a statement effectively prejudged certain aspects of the trial, precluding an examination of whether the military ordered the virginity tests or had a policy of carrying them out. 134. The Complainant further submitted that the same structural and systemic flaws that call into question the independence of the Egyptian military justice system also raise serious concerns regarding its impartiality. In the case at hand, submitting that an active member of the military (the judge) was tasked with deciding on a case that involves a defendant who is another active member of the military. In short, a member of one institution, the army, which by its very nature highlights values of cohesion and comradery, must decide whether one or m~r~ members of the same institution have committed a crime against someone who does not belong to the same institution. 135. Showing the incidents that show the lack of independence and impartiality of the Military Justice System, the complainant submitted that the military prosecutor chose to charge Dr El-Mogy with public indecency and insubordination, the latter charge negating the possibility that the alleged abuse could have been ordered by higherranking officers in the purview of section 268 of the Egyptian Penal Code;119 They submitted that the First Victim's lawyer tried several times to have the charges amended from public indecency to sexual assault, but his request was denied.F? 136. The Complainants moreover submitted that the military prosecutor ignored several criminal acts that the First Victim had reported, such as the beating, verbal abuse and the use of an electroshock device by military personnel during the dispersal of the See Annex 11. see relevant Articles in Annex 13. 120 See, Paragraph 177 of the Submission on Merit 118 119 311 P age :,,~'I!~ African(,) Union\.'11 The African Commissio