o That the Respondent State makes a public statement committing itself to the respect of human rights in general, and in particular the independence of legal practitioners and the judiciary to operate freely without harassment or fear of torture. o That the Respondent State pays reasonable compensation for the physical pain, psychological trauma, medical expenses, loss of job and lack of access to family suffered by the Victim. Respondent State Rebuttal 92. The Respondent State argues that the Complainant has based his submissions on his arrest which took place on 14 January 2003. It argues that the Victim was arrested together with three (3) others at Nyamutamba Hotel, Chitungwiza for contravening section 5(2) (a) (1) of the Public Order security Act (chapter 11:17) (POSA). The Respondent State avers that the Victim was brought to court on 16 January 2003 and advised to apply to the High Court for bail because of the seriousness of the charges he was facing. It says that the Victim was subsequently granted bail by the High Court. The Respondent State draws the attention of the African Commission that one of the accused persons arrested together with the Victim was Job Sikhala, who was the Member of the Parliament for St. Mary's Constituency. 93. The Respondent State also states that it is important to note that the African Commission's Ordinary Session held in Accra, Ghana, the African Commission attempted to have the Respondent State attend hearing where certain evidence was to be given against it. It says that the Respondent State informed the African Commission that the notice of the hearing had not been formally brought to its attention and therefore would not attend the hearing. The Respondent State says it later learnt that the African Commission went ahead and received certain information which had allegedly occurred in Respondent State's territory. It says the above incident is cited because the Victim avers that he gave oral evidence at that juncture and alleges that the "Government's representatives conceded that they could not say what kind of torture the Victim suffered in police custody."3 94. The Respondent State submits that this statement is incorrect in so far as it purports to prove that the Respondent State attended that hearing. The Respondent State submits that were the African Commission to accept that as evidence, it would be procedurally incorrect due to the fact that the hearing was not specifically for Communication 288/2004. It says that it was a general hearing about the situation obtaining in the Respondent State country. The Respondent State further submits that the references made to that hearing should not be taken as evidence before the African Commission for the purposes of this Communication "when regard is made to the provisions of Rules 116, 117, 118, 119 and 120 of the African Charter [sic]."4 Respondent State Rebuttal of Article 4 95. The Respondent State argues that the Victim alleges that he was tortured at the hands of the police and further uses the word 'electrocution'. It also says that the Victim avers that he was subjected to prolonged electric shocks in the mouth, genitals, fingers, toes and other parts of the body. The Respondent State notes that the Victim was arrested on 14 January 2003 and brought to court on 16 January 2003, which it argues is within the statutory limit of forty-eight (48) hours. It argues that if indeed the Victim was tortured to the extent he describes, this should clearly have been visible on his first day in court. It also requests the African Commission to note that the Victim's Lawyer, Advocate Selemani, did not inform the court on Victim's first court appearance of the alleged torture for the court to order an investigation into the matter and an examination of the Victim. It states that the graphic details of torture which has been submitted to the African Commission were not given to the court of first instance. It states that to this date, the Respondent State has not been availed the detailed medical reports showing the injuries the Victim allegedly suffered as a result. It submits that "in the absence of documentary evidence, the allegations remain Complainant's say-so".5 Respondent State Rebuttal of Article 5 96. In terms of Article 5, the Respondent State says that the Victim alleges that he was "forced to drink his own blood" without specifying the nature of the injury and where the blood came from. It states that the injuries sustained were not brought to the attention of the court on 16 January 2003 when the Victim first appeared when it is expected they were still fresh and visible. It submits that the nature of injuries sustained by Victim had to be serious if any blood was oozing from them to the extent of it being of sufficient quantities to be 'drunk' by the Victim. It states that no medical reports, detailing the injuries, have been 10