19. During the 51 st Ordinary Session the Complainants made their oral submissions in the absence of the State delegates as the latter did not appear. The Law on Admissibility Submission of the Complainants 20. According to the Complainants they were not able to lodge Complaints personally inside Sudan as they had to flee the country out of a well-founded fear for their own safety. They further allege that human rights lawyers in Sudan or others who may have in other circumstances been able and willing to bring a complaint on behalf of their have been subject to intimidation 2 and would face a heightened risk to their personal safety if they were to take up such a high profile case closely related to the ICC. 21. The Complainants also state that Mr. Monim Elgak wrote an open letter to Salah Abdullah (Gosh), then Director General of the NISS, on 19 December 2008, which was widely published inside and outside Sudan, in which he gave an account of his arrest and torture, and referred to the arrest and torture of the other two applicants. 22. The Complainants aver that no investigations have been commenced in response to the open letter, or to the representations made by Embassy representatives, or others. 23. They submit that the Respondent State stated, in response to recommendations of the UN Expert Group on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, that the Complainants had been arrested and detained and kept at the premises of security services for hours for investigation. 3 24. The Complainants further submit that domestic remedies in the Respondent State are ineffective and unduly prolonged. They submit that neither the Criminal Procedure Act of 1991 (CPA) nor the National Security Forces Act of 1999 (NSFA), nor any other legislation for that matter, stipulate a duty on the part of the authorities to commence an investigation upon coming to hear about an allegation of torture or following a complaint of torture. There is no explicit right or established procedure or precedent of using mandamus or other remedies to compel the Sudanese authorities to commence an investigation. In addition, NISS members benefit from immunity by law that would need to be lifted for any investigation to proceed. 4 25 . According to the Complainants it is routine practice for the Director of the NISS not to lift the immunity of NISS members. They allege that given that the former Director himself, who is at present a Presidential Advisor, is implicated in the case forming the subject of this communication, it is highly improbable that his immunity would be lifted, nor that of any of his subordinates for that matter. No transparent and effective remedies are available to challenge inaction or refusal to lift the immunity. 5 26. They add that a private prosecution cannot be brought without the approval of the Director of the NISS who will need to lift the immunity of the individual officer(s) concerned 6 and that there is no prospect of any immunity being lifted in the present case. 27. The Complainants further argue that the local remedies are unduly prolonged as 10 months after Mr. Monim Elgak lodged his Complaint to the NISS authorities no action has been taken to investigate the substance of the allegation and to provide them with remedies. In cases of torture, the Complainants submit, international standards recognize that authorities should open an investigation promptly, as reflected in paragraph 19 of the Robben Island Guidelines. 7 28. The Complainants conclude by stating that there are no effective remedies of which the Complainants could avail themselves to compel a full investigation without the approval of the security services and/or to seek other forms of reparation. 3