apostasy and adultery because insufficient evidence was furnished commission of that offence. 12. to prove the The Complainants state that following the decision of the Appeal Court, the first, third, and fourth victims were released from detention on 23 June 2014. It is alleged that they were then taken to the US Embassy amid serious concern that extremist religious groups might attack them, and the initial plaintiff who triggered the case against the first Victim also threatened to carry out the death sentence himself if she were released. It is further alleged that on 24 June 2014, all victims were arrested.by 10-15 National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) agents when they were about to leave the Respondent State at Khartoum Airport. They were then detained at a ,<\etention f~~1~itybelonging to the NISS and denied access to their lawyers. <ii, "';' 13. The Complainants stated that after s ' in tfie"t-:;r~i§!"det~I1ti;8~, facility, the first victim was transferred to Khartoum! _ olice ~,,~ ;',~n,wn~fe,she was ~u~l:ltionedabout the authenticity of her travel docume ~nwhich ffie~authoriqes claimed were falsified. The Complainants submitted th~t:the firs'lF . tim h alid en{~i:~~!~cytravel documents from the Sudanese authorities and ,azvalid VI the United'States of America. 14. On 25 June 2014, the ~ISS accused th;~,:Jirst Vi." . of forgery and providing false ,.)~ :~\ _ ;1~,iJ:;q, : d, information. The Q1;herthree victims were allowed ',:' eave detention but chose to stay with the first . :,'" ~n custody, The ,first Victim was'!;~~l~asedon bail on 26 June 2014. H~F'~-' .'\ ""~':'< - 'iif~;.#:Thereafter, al e victims sougI;l~/refuge in tli~iUS Efubassy located in Khartoum. Extremist relig10us groups frequently threatened them, and a group gathered outside the Embassy, demai ,'ng the handover ofi;pe first Victim. The US Embassy security guard had "to call the po ' to disperse the crowd. 'i ,iL" 15. The C;gP:ll(!':)!n:ants alleg:' rat on 2 J 01i, the attorney for the first Victim submitted evidence to lli~"Att~rne' ,'~r~t9{;o,111, an, indicating that the Victim's arrest on 25 June 2014 lacked any baSISand thediarges against her were unfounded. The emergency travel documentsiin hefl~QSSessiqnwere found authentic and issued by the Sudanese Embassy. They further ,contend that on 4 July 2014, the original plaintiff, who claims to be the brother of the"ftrst Victim, appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal verdict passed On 23 June 2014. This appeal was still pending before the Supreme Court when the Complainants filed their submissions on Admissibility before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission).