call at the place in which the prisoner is detained and carry out an investigation and then order the release of the prisoner who is illegally detained. He shall draw up a statement to this effect to be sent to the Public Prosecution for taking legal action towards the person responsible for such imprisonment. If an order is issued for dismissing the complaint by the party to which it is addressed, the complainant shall be informed accordingly”. 10. NIHR believes that the legal provisions set out in the article stated in the original law is more general and comprehensive and provides more secure guarantee of the rights and freedoms of the detainees. The article as stated in the draft law is limited to filing the complaint in writing, while the original article permits filing the complaint in writing or orally. In certain cases, it is not possible to file the complaint in writing. In addition, the article in the draft law restricts the public prosecutor authority to taking legal action towards the person responsible for the illegal imprisonment of the convicted or at a place not designated for imprisonment, to the exclusion of any other procedure. On the other hand, the original provision grants the public prosecutor the right to take any legal action that ensures commencing a criminal case against the person responsible for the illegal imprisonment and notify the competent authority, in his capacity as a public servant, to take disciplinary action against him. 11. Thus, the legal provisions set out in the article of the original law are more general and comprehensive and guarantee the rights of detainees to file written and verbal complaints under the umbrella of independent judicial oversight. 12. A  rticle 77 provides that: “Judicial arrest officers shall, in the course of carrying out their duties, be empowered to seek the direct assistance of the military force with the permission of the competent public prosecution”. NIHR concurs that the judicial arrest officers should have the power to seek the assistance of military force, when necessary, with the permission of the competent public prosecution. 13. N  IHR believes that the provision set out in the draft law that the judicial arrest officers may, when necessary, seek the assistance of military force, subject to a permission by the public prosecution, is a judicial guarantee that is in line with the international instruments of human rights. In particular, Article 44 of the Law provides that: “Judicial arrest officers shall report to the Public Prosecutor and be subject to his supervision with respect to their job duties”. Therefore, it is necessary for this power to be coupled with a permission by the competent public prosecution, which is not contrary to the urgency or intervention required in cases of necessity. 14. Clause 1 of Article 84 provides that: “The accused, victim, the plaintiff who claims civil rights, the person responsible for them, and their attorneys shall be entitled to attend all investigation proecdures. A public prosecution member shall give them notice of the day and time on which the investigation procedures take place and venue thereof”. Accordingly, NIHR believes that determining the day, time, and place where investigation will be carried out achieves justice for all parties to the criminal case and is in line with the international instruments related to human rights. 19