,/:~~~\ ACHPR , ~') (J,THXJ:f/ African Commission on Human and Peoples' Hiqhts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility March 9th protest and at the preliminary place of detention at the Egyptian Museum. They stated that the military prosecutor ignored such acts despite the presence of ample evidence.F! 137. The Complainants submitted further that the Military Prosecutor also failed to present to the Military Court, a record of witness statements and other evidence for the prosecution contrary to Section 214/2 of the Code of Criminal Procedures.F" They added that the military prosecutor presented inconsistent statements of the witnesses for the defence, never cross-examine them or present any witnesses for the prosecution. They stated that the four witnesses for the prosecution were presented only after the First Victim's lawyers asked the judge for permission to bring witnesses. Moreover, they added that the military prosecutor chose not to appeal the Court's acquittal of Dr El Mogy, a decision that could not be appealed by the victim as per Article 43 (bis) and 117 of the Code of Military Justice.l23 138. The Complainants also faulted the court's ruling and reasoning which considered the testimony of prosecution witnesses who were not members of the military, which contradicted the testimony of the other military members who appeared as prosecution witnesses as hearsay.P+ The Complainants questioned this judgment for what appeared that it relies on military :personnel testimonies exclusively while dismissing the only civilian testimonies available. In addition, the Complainants submitted that military judges rejected the request by the First Victim's lawyers to call the three relevant military officials of SCAF who had told the: above-mentioned witnesses that forced genital examinations were a normal cautionary procedure.l> 139. As to the Expansive Jurisdiction of the Egyptian Military Justice System to violate Article 26 of the African Charter, the complainant submitted that there is a growing international trend to reject military courts as a platform for dealing with cases involving allegations of human rights abuses by military personnel against civilians. The Complainants submitted calling for the Commission to further clarify and solidify its position on the use of military jurisdiction in cases involving human rights violations by military personnel. 121 see Annex14. 122See Annex 11 123 See, paragraph 1810f the Submission in Merit 321 P age