A/HRC/7/3/Add.1 page 88 Para Country Date Type Mandate Allegations transmitted Government response investigations and the forensic medicine and criminal laboratory reports; the judgment encompassed the incident appropriately according to the affirmed facts, encompassed all the pleadings and pleas of the defence as contained in the two grievances of the convicts, and responded to them sufficiently without prejudice to the right of the defence; in its response on the “invalidity of the complementary referral order,” the judgment noted that the PPO is not allowed to investigate the same incident with the same accused person after the case is referred to the court, however, this restriction does not jeopardize the prosecution’s right to investigate another person accused of the same incident but who has not been referred to the court, which is what the Court of Cassation concluded in its judgment; and the protested judgment is concurrent with the law, and none of the convicts forwarded whatever may affect its validity. On the basis of the above, the examining Counsellor issued a memorandum supporting the conclusions reached in the judgment of the State Security Emergency Court, hence the President ratified this judgment. Therefore, there remains for the convicts to petition the President to use his constitutional competence of granting pardon. The Government informed that in the PPO’s investigation minutes the lawyers attended the investigation sessions with the suspects. The lawyers were allowed to present their pleadings and affirm their requests in the sessions. The PPO did not refuse any request from the lawyers to appear with their clients. It is