not say what kind of torture the Victim suffered in police custody, and could not deny that it in fact occurred. 150. The Complainant also states that consequent to the Victim's incarceration, the Victim suffered severe physical injuries and psychological trauma resultant from the torture. He states that the Victim received treatment for physical injuries and psychological trauma from Parirenyatwa, Avenues and Dandaro Hospital and clinics in Zimbabwe. He further states that when he fled to South Africa, the Victim was still suffering from physical injuries, severe depression, nightmares, temporary impotence so much so that he had to receive further treatment and counseling for trauma at the Centre for Studies of Violence and Reconciliation for at least one year. During this period he was on anti-depressants and other medication. This also contributed to the disruption of his family, according to Complainant. 151. The Respondent State denies all the allegations, but the African Commission notes that the Respondent State has not responded fully to the specific allegations levied against it.23 For example, the Complainant in his rebuttal to the Respondent State submission on the Merits, state that both he and his legal counsel when he appeared in the Magistrate Court, the issue of the Victim's torture and ill-treatment was brought up by his legal counsel. The Complainant state that the Magistrate ordered that the court room be cleared so that he could take a look at the injuries of the Victim sustained as a result of the torture, including the Victim's genitals. The Complainant state that as a result, the Magistrate ordered that the Victim be taken to the hospital for treatment. The Magistrate order and the hospital admission form were all transmitted to the Respondent State. The Respondent State chose not to address that issue. 152. The African Commission, in several previous decisions, has set out the principle that where allegations of human rights abuse go uncontested by the Government concerned, the African Commission must decide on the facts provided by the Complainant and treat those facts as give.24 This principle conforms with the practice of other international human rights adjudicatory bodies and the Commission's duty to protect human rights. Since the Respondent State did not fully respond to all the allegations the African Commission must, regrettably, come to a conclusion based on the facts and opinions submitted by the Complainant. 153. It is also instructive to note a number of judgments from other jurisdiction as regards individuals who alleged torture whilst in custody. Some of these cases mention the inadequacies prevailing in many States with regard to medical and legal investigation and documentation, and advise that the Principles of the Istanbul Protocol are followed during investigation and documentation of torture. The first elaboration on the Istanbul Protocol, for example, is found in the case of Bah and others v. Turkey, June 2004.25 The case concerns about fifteen people detained (some were also arrested) in February 1996. All the persons complained that they were tortured and one had a miscarriage as a result of torture during their period in custody. All detainees, except two, had various medical reports supporting their allegations of torture and ill treatment. The Court concluded that the Protocol contains full practical instructions for assessing persons who claim to have been victims of torture or ill treatment, for investigating suspected cases of torture and for reporting the investigation's findings to relevant authorities. The Court stressed the purposes of an effective investigation and documentation of torture and other forms of ill treatment. It found inter alia that "the Turkish authorities could not be considered to have acted with sufficient promptness or with reasonable diligence, with the result that the main perpetrators of acts of violence have enjoyed virtual impunity, despite the existence of incontrovertible evidence against them."26 154. In the instant matter, despite extensive medical evidences supplied by the Complainant, the Respondent State did nothing to investigate and document the allegations. The African Commission notes that, apart from its usual channels of communication with the Respondent State, its Secretariat also hand delivered (which was signed by the Respondent State) the Complainant's rejoinder (containing extensive medical documents and pictures) of the response of the Respondent State. The Respondent State decided not to comment on all of the allegations made against it, apparently relying on its initial Merit submissions. 155. In that Merit submission the Respondent State says that the Victim allege 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. However, the allegations have since been brought to the attention of the Respondent State when the Complaint was first lodged with the African Commission in May 2004. The African Commission informed the Respondent State of the very serious allegations made against it on 13 December 2004 and subsequent communications with the Respondent State. What did it do to investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice if the allegations were true? The African Commission is not aware of any investigations undertaken by the Respondent State to (dis)prove the very serious allegations made against it. 19