51. The Complainant submits that "the unjust trial practices are symptomatic of the repressive actions against all legitimate opposition in Egypt; conduct which is in violation of the African Charter and international human rights law." The Complainant further submits that freedom of speech and assembly have been heavily restricted and organizations opposed to the military regime, primarily the Muslim Brotherhood, was banned and labelled a 'terrorist' organization in December 2013. The Complainant submits that several of the individual named in this Communication have been, or were thought to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood. 52. The Complainant states that the systemic violations have facilitated and aided the courts to conduct proceedings which ignore all basic fair trial considerations and serve as a means of sentencing opponents of the State to death or long terms in the absence of evidence. The Complainants submits that this should all be taken into account when making a determination on the admissibility and merits of this Communication. Submissions by the Respondent State on locus standi 53. The Respondent State in a Note Verbale of 18 December 2017 raised challenges as to the locus standi of the Complainant, stating that it does not have any eligible status to present a Communication to the Commission for the following reasons: Justice Party (the Complainant) has Administrative Court on 8/4/2014 1977 regulatin the operation of been dissolved by a (1) the Freedom and sentence of the Supreme ue to its violation of Article 4 of Rule 40 issued in p o i ical parties in the Respondent State; (2) the Complainant is a political entity established{>y the Muslim Brotherhood, which had been declared a terrorist organization by, a ruling of the North Cairo Criminal Court on 1/ 6/2017; and (3) the Communication is brought by a political party, whereas political parties are not included in the Rules of the Procedure of the Commission under Rule 63 (1) which lists the institutions which may request for a matter to be included in the agenda of the Ordinary Session of the Commission. The Respondent State further elected against submitting on Admissibility on the basis that the Complainant lacks locus standi. Additional submissions by the Complainant on the submissions by the Respondent State 54. Following the challenge raised by the Respondent State on the locus standi of the Complainant, set out in paragraph 20 above, the Commission requested the Complainant to submit arguments in this regard. 55. In response to the submission by the Respondent State that the Complainant has been dissolved by the Supreme Administrative Court and is a political entity establish�� 1.i.P.1�, . q � "' ., ':.,c?:£ � · fo:� • r®\ l ) , , . ;\ t \:f;J '\ 'il' -1' ,o AU·Uf, l's "' !" c, 'v �'Yo:t41'Rl\.'II.I� f f :. $'; ;,_, � ��� I