public official/civil servant or an impounding officer.27 The Complainants aver that victims of state abuse are therefore left without any redress if the Public Prosecutor decides not to proceed with a case. 95. The Complainants further submit that while civilian plaintiffs generally have the option of filing a request in court for an “investigative judge“ to take charge of investigations, this option is not available if the accused person is a public official.28 The Complainants submit that the laws in Egypt have left the Victim with no avenue to challenge the Prosecutor’s refusal to act on the Victim’s complaints of torture and ill-treatment. Pattern of impunity for allegations of torture 96. The Complainants submit that the case of the Victim is emblematic of the structural deficiencies in Egypt’s legal system as evidenced by the pattern of prosecutorial failure to deal with allegations of torture made against the police and security officials and the resulting impunity. The Complainants submit that the Egyptian criminal justice system creates substantial barriers to any effective accountability for security officers for torture. 97. The Complainants submit that there is no independent entity responsible for investigating crimes committed by security officers and no functional monitoring mechanism to oversee the work of the police and prosecutors. Alleged violation of Article 6 Detention was not in accordance with law 98. The Complainants allege that the bulk of the Victim’s detention was in violation of approximately 15 court orders for his release. The Complainants submit that the pattern of detaining the Victim in the face of orders for his release began in November 1996, when the Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered his release, but the Minister of Interior ignored the release order and placed him in administrative detention under the Emergency Law. 99. The Complainants further submit that from July 1997, the Victim obtained repeated court orders for his release, which were subverted or ignored by the authorities who would often transfer the Victim to a different site for a short period of time before returning him to prison. The Complainants submit that the authorities would issue false release documents, allowing the Victim to be falsely rearrested on baseless allegations of new criminal activities. The Complainants submit that this pattern of Egyptian authorities subverting release orders by issuing prison release forms while moving detainees to a different detention site has been widely reported. Detention was arbitrary 27 28 Criminal Procedure Code of Egypt, Article 210. As above, Article 64. 15