▁was ▁brought ▁against ▁the ▁ 2 0 1 4 ▁Q an un ▁by ▁the ▁Institute ▁for ▁C riminal ▁Justice ▁Reform ▁in ▁ 2 0 1 5 . ▁The ▁pet ition er ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁Q an un ▁was ▁not ▁in ▁line ▁with ▁superior ▁laws , ▁namely ▁the ▁national ▁C riminal ▁Code , ▁as ▁the ▁code ▁did ▁not ▁include ▁can ing ▁in ▁its ▁exhaust ive ▁list ▁of ▁allowed ▁pun ish ments ; ▁the ▁ 1 9 9 9 ▁Human ▁Rights ▁Law ▁and ▁the ▁International ▁C oven ant ▁on ▁Civil ▁and ▁Political ▁Rights , ▁since ▁can ing ▁is ▁considered ▁to ▁be ▁a ▁form ▁of ▁tort ure ▁or ▁cruel , ▁in human ▁and ▁de grad ing ▁treatment ▁under ▁these ▁instruments ; ▁and ▁also ▁the ▁C riminal ▁Pro cedure ▁Code ▁for ▁the ▁reason ▁that ▁the ▁code ▁requires ▁police ▁to ▁provide ▁evidence ▁for ▁cr imes , ▁not ▁the ▁vict ims , ▁and ▁o ath ▁before ▁God ▁is ▁not ▁regarded ▁as ▁a ▁valid ▁form ▁of ▁evidence . ▁Furthermore , ▁the ▁pet ition er ▁assert ed ▁that ▁the ▁Q an un ▁was ▁contrary ▁to ▁" h ier archy ▁of ▁laws " ▁clause ▁under ▁Article ▁ 7 ( 1 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Law - making ▁Law . ▁It ▁further ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁Q an un ▁viol ated ▁Article ▁ 6 ( 1 )( i ) ▁of ▁the ▁ 2 0 1 1 ▁Law - making ▁Law , ▁as ▁the ▁Q an un ▁was ▁de emed ▁to ▁be ▁a ▁duplicate ▁of ▁national ▁laws ▁and ▁thus ▁was ▁comprom ising ▁legal ▁order ▁and ▁certain