were tortured during interrogations in order to obtain confessions. The Complainant further alleges that the torture included anal rape with a wooden stick, electric shocks, burning with cigarette butts, suspension in stress positions for days and threats that their mothers and sisters would be raped. The Complainant states that the six Victims later retracted their confessions on the basis that it was obtained under torture and that this led to further torture by the National Security Agency (NSA). 6. The Complainant avers that there were also flaws in the manner in which the trial was conducted, including the validity of the evidence produced in Court and the testimony of alleged eyewitnesses. In this regard, the case rested primarily on the Victims' recanted confessions, the Court ignored forensic evidence related to the alleged torture, the rifle produced by the prosecution as the murder weapon did not match the bullets found in the victim, there were a number of discrepancies between the evidence produced and the witness' testimonies, and the main defendant provided evidence that at the'time he had undergone surgery which rendered him completely unable to hold a gun. 7. The Complaint further avers that the Court applied appeal system which gives it the discretion not to he abolishes a previous two-stage ap could refer cases back recent legal amendments to the r any defence witnesses and which ea! process, through which the Court of Cessation to the Criminal Court. or retrial. The abolition means that all judgements of the Court of Cassation are final and l:iinding, and the Complainant alleges that this makes it easier for the Court to impose death sentences without effective challenge. Given these amendments, the Complainant avers that it is unlikely that the appeal submitted by the six Victims on 15 June 2017 on the basis of procedural flaws in the trial will be granted. The Victims are allegedly still detained at various locations, held in appalling conditions and 8. enied medical care and family visits. The second case relates to the upholding on 19 June 2017 by the Supreme Military Court of Appeals, the highest military court of appeal, of the death sentence verdict of seven Victims (of which three were sentenced in absentia) implicated in the Kafr Al Sheikh stadium bombing which took place in April 2015 in which a room next to the stadium exploded, leaving seven dead and three injured (the Kafr Al Sheikh case). The Complainant states that this case falls under the jurisdiction of the military courts since the passing of a new law which expands the jurisdiction of military courts to all electricity networks, road and bridge networks property, amongst others. 9. as well as other buildings, utilities and public