iii. The PPO permitted each person who sustained injuries as a result of the crime to institute civil proceedings during investigations in application of Article 199 bis of the Criminal Procedure Law; iv. On 13 June 2005, the PPO viewed the video tapes and CDs submitted by the Complainants and it was revealed that none of the accused were present in front of the Press Syndicate or Saad AC HP R Zaghloul Status, except Mohamed El Deeb; v. The PPO summoned all the accused whose names were included in the investigations and interrogated them in detail; vi. Investigations carried out by the PPO concluded the crime of sexual molestation (exposing private parts, sexual harassment and touching the genitals). The Complainants’ Additional Submissions on the Merits 103. In response to the Respondent State‟s submissions about the “Existence of several discrepancies between what the Victims submitted in their testimonies before the PPO, and what they allege in their application before the African Commission,” the Complainants argue that the Respondent State only sets out three discrepancies, while inferring that there are more discrepancies which it does not substantiate. They submit that the instances set out by the Respondent State refer to omissions rather than contradictions. 104. According to the Complainants, the omissions mentioned above are due to the conditions under which the statements before the PPO were taken, 28