186. The Complainants urge the Commission to reject as unfounded the Respondent State’s reliance on the ICCPR derogation clause to justify the lawfulness of the Emergency Law. The Complainants submit that applying the ICCPR’s derogation provision to the African Charter would alter the Charter’s purposeful character and goes far beyond the allowance for the Commission to draw inspiration from international law on human and peoples’ rights under Article 60 of the Charter. 187. The Complainants aver that the attempt by the Government to portray the Emergency Law as a limited system which operates under effective judicial oversight is at odds with reality. The Complainants state that Egypt was formally in a state of emergency for the entirety of the Victim’s detention, and more broadly from 1967 to May 2012, with a brief suspension from May 1980 to October 1981. Alleged violation of Article 7 188. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State’s argument that the fair trial rights of the Victim were not violated as Emergency Law detainees are not entitled to a criminal trial, proves that the Victim’s rights under Article 7 were violated. 189. The Complainants submit that the Government’s argument as to the Victim’s access to counsel relates only to the period when the Victim was under investigation for criminal charges i.e. the first 18 months of detention. 190. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State did not address the restrictions placed on the Victim when he was able to meet his counsel, which are all incompatible with the right to access counsel under the Charter. 191. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State does not dispute the total lack of access to counsel for the 15 years of administrative detention. Alleged violation of Article 16 192. The Complainants submit that the limited access to medical attention provided to the Victim 15 years into his detention in 2010 and the two medical reports in 2011, do not meet the State’s obligations under the African Charter. The Complainants aver that the Respondent State has ignored both its responsibility for the damage to the Victim’s health through its abuse and the conditions of detention, and the specific instances where the requests of the Victim for medical attention was denied. Decision of the Commission on the Preliminary Observations of the Respondent State 193. In line with Rule 117(4) of its Rules of Procedure 2010, before dealing with the Merits of the Communication, the Commission would like to pronounce itself on the preliminary objection of the Respondent State to the Admissibility of the 28