13. Prior to the issuance of the judgment, the NIHR addressed the Military Justice to closely examine and verify, in accordance with the legal and administrative procedures in force, the allegation that a number of defendants of the present case were, at the time, subjected to enforced disappearance, torture, and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. 14. Under the broad mandate granted to NIHR and its legal position and its national responsibility for protection of human rights in the Kingdom of Bahrain, it initiated the necessary investigation of these allegations against the persons deprived of their personal liberty, and directly contacted the Military Justice as the legal body entrusted with considering the above case. 15. The NIHR was totally keen to be provided by the Military Justice with copies of the minutes of investigation with the convicts of Terrorist Crimes Prosecution and the Military Prosecution, as well as the requests for their referral to forensic medicine, the forensic reports received by the Terrorist Crimes Prosecution and the Military Prosecution in this regard, in addition to the forensic reports received by the Court that has the competence under the law to consider the case. 16. Referring to the definition of “torture” according to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, under Decree-Law No. (8) of 1998, it is the same definition set out in the Penal Code promulgated by Decree-Law No. (15) of 1976, as amended. In view of the fact that the minutes of investigation of the Public Prosecution, the Military Prosecution, and the forensic reports at the investigation and trial stages had no evidence that there were cases of torture in relation to the aforementioned convicts. These medical reports are issued by two different specialized medical agencies, with which NIHR is satisfied. Therefore, the claims of being subjected to crimes of torture by the aforementioned convicts are contrary to the contents of the relevant medical reports. 17. On the other hand, the NIHR has examined the applications filed by the relatives or legal representatives of some of the convicts to the Public Prosecution and the Military prosecution. These applications indicated that the applicants were aware of the whereabouts of the convicts and they requested allowing them or their representatives to visit them. In addition, the NIHR examined the log of visits by the families of the convicts and the log of phone calls between them and the convicts. 18. By reference to the provisions of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution No. 61/177 dated 20 December 2006, in particular the crime of “enforced disappearance”, it appears that the provisions of the International Convention do not apply in any way to the actions taken with respect to the convicts in the case mentioned above. This was confirmed by the relatives of the convicts in the aforementioned applications to the investigation authorities, as well as the log of communications and visits that were made between the convicts and their relatives. As such, the NIHR considers that the reported allegations of “enforced disappearances” crime of the convicts in the present case are not consistent with international, regional, and national human rights standards. 51