A/HRC/43/16 provided and verified. The Government was eager to ensure that people could freely interact with mandate holders of the Council. 18. The cybercrimes law aimed at striking a balance between the exercise of freedom of expression and combating information and communications technology-related crimes. It therefore required a court decision to block websites when there was evidence that a crime prescribed by law had been committed, in line with article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 19. In accordance with the Constitution, the crime of torture, in all its forms, was imprescriptible, all confessions derived thereby were invalid, and torture, intimidation and physical or psychological harm were criminalized. In line with those stipulations and the obligations of Egypt under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, articles 126, 127, 129, 280, 281 and 282 of the Penal Code criminalized all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and set out penalties proportionate to the gravity of such acts. Furthermore, the Court of Cassation had repeatedly asserted in its rulings that statements obtained through prolonged interrogations represented material or moral harm and therefore were inadmissible. All individual cases of torture or ill-treatment were thoroughly investigated by the Public Prosecution, which was currently creating a database on such incidents. The three-tier grievance mechanism aimed at fighting impunity, namely through criminal prosecution, disciplinary accountability and reparation. The national report contained data on incidents investigated and punished. 20. All forms of legally unjustified deprivation of liberty were prohibited in all circumstances, even under emergency law. The Public Prosecution, being an independent judicial body, investigated claims of enforced disappearance. No location was exempt from inspection by the Public Prosecution. All claims regarding missing persons did not turn out to be cases of enforced disappearance. Many cases actually involved recruitment in terrorist groups, illegal migration, or avoidance of social situations, such as blood feuds. Freedom of movement was enshrined in the Constitution, and it was impossible to keep track of the whereabouts of all citizens. The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances had commended the Government for its cooperation in its most recent report to the Human Rights Council. 21. All prisons and detention facilities fell under judicial supervision, according to Egyptian legislation. The Prisons Act and its regulations were in conformity with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners. The Public Prosecution inspected all prisons and detention facilities on a regular basis, as well as carrying out surprise visits and visits in follow-up to complaints. It made recommendations on living and health conditions and treatment, and monitored their implementation. The Public Prosecution had carried out 147 visits to prisons and detention facilities. As the Law on the National Council for Human Rights had been amended to ensure its independence, the Council had also been granted the right to visit, and to inform the Public Prosecution of its findings. Additionally, the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee, the National Council for Women and the National Council for Childhood and Motherhood made regular visits. 22. Each prisoner was allowed two hours in the open air and received regular medical check-ups and allocated rations, in addition to medications and food provided by relatives. Every prison had a fully equipped clinic and every region had a central hospital. If treatment became unattainable onsite, transfer was authorized to public hospitals. Prisoners could also be granted release on grounds of ill-health. 23. Fair trial guarantees were stipulated in articles 55, 95, 96, 97, 186, 187, 188 and 189 of the Constitution, and were reflected in laws, in accordance with international standards. Solitary confinement was a disciplinary punishment, and should not exceed 15 days, while single cells with en-suite facilities could be used to accommodate individuals’ health conditions. In both cases, individuals were allowed to see their lawyers and all their rights were protected. 24. Arbitrary deprivation of the right to life was criminalized. The death penalty was only imposed for the most serious crimes, in accordance with article 6 of the International 5