and Rehabilitation Center regarding this matter. The Center responded that inspections were conducted in accordance with the procedures and controls in force in the Center, during which several violations were found that required an administrative penalty; and as a result, the inmates of the cell were denied outdoor time for a period of 4 days. the NIHR sent a letter to the Inspector General Office of the National Security Agency to consider the matter. The Office responded that the complaint was referred to the Ombudsman Secretariat General pursuant to Article No. (81-bis) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. Regarding the right to enjoy fair trial guarantees, the NIHR received (3) complaints from inmates at the Correction and Rehabilitation Center, where the first complaint centered around failing to transport the inmate (J.D.S.) to attend the trial session on July 18, 2022, at the High Criminal Court of Appeal, whether in-person or remotely via videoconference technology. Accordingly, the NIHR addressed the competent authorities, and it was found that the claim was incorrect, as there was no court session scheduled for the inmate on that date. 12. Moreover, the NIHR received a complaint from the family of the detainee (H.H.M.) to the effect that he was subjected to ill-treatment by some law enforcement officers in the Dry Dock Detention Center, in addition to forcing him, under threat, to confess to criminal acts he did not commit, and that he was interrogated by the Public Prosecution without having his lawyer present, contrary to the provisions of Article No. (134) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Immediately, the NIHR addressed the Special Investigation Unit of the Public Prosecution, the Ombudsman, and the Ministry of Interior in this regard. The investigation is still ongoing and is being considered by the Special Investigation Unit; the response, after the completion of the investigation, will be included in the next report. 15. The second complaint was submitted by the family of the inmate (A.A.A.) regarding failure to allow their accused son to exercise the rights of defense during his appearance before the High Criminal Court. Accordingly, the NIHR attended the trial sessions of the complainant to make sure that the accused and his lawyer enjoyed the right to defence to verify fair trial guarantees in all its stages. The NIHR noted that the session was valid in terms of publicity of proceedings, the defence team was allowed to attend and question witnesses, and listen to their requests and statements, and the defendants were allowed to speak before the court. 13. The NIHR also received a complaint from the family of the inmate (H.A.M.), stating that he had been interrogated in the building of the General Directorate of Criminal Investigations and Forensic Evidence, without knowing the reason for the investigation, explaining that he was ill-treated by some law enforcement officers. Immediately, 91