African Charter took place. It states that it would set a dangerous precedent were the African Commission to rely on mere say-so by Complainants and rule that violations have taken place when no evidence is adduced to prove the allegations. Complainant Supplementary Submissions on the Respondent State's Response on the Merits 110. The Complainant states that this supplementary submission addresses key arguments made in the Respondent State response on the Merits. He argues that while the Respondent State raises issues in relation to the Complainant's contention that Articles 6, 7, 10(1) and 14 have been violated, the Complainant does not respond to these points in this submission as they are fully addressed in the Merits. He said that the rejoinder is made without prejudice to these points. 111. The Complainant argues that the thrust of the Respondent State's Submission is that the Victim's allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment ('other ill-treatment') are unsubstantiated. In response, the Complainant submits that the allegations made are well-founded and substantiated by a range of sources, including detailed personal testimony attached to the original Communication, setting out the date, places (where known) and nature of his torture and other ill-treatment and the effects therein, three medical and three psychological reports; a report by the U.S. State Department; reports by non-governmental organizations specialized in the investigation and documentation of human rights abuses; and media reports submitted with the original Communication. 112. The Complainant submits that the range of sources before the African Commission establishes that Article 5 of the African Charter has been violated by the Respondent State. The Complainant further points out that the Respondent State has provided no evidence or documentation to the contrary. He further submits that the Magistrate recorded the hearing in writing. He also states that as the Victim was forced to flee the territory of the Respondent State as a result of the violations set out in the submission, he cannot access the court registry in order to provide the African Commission with the court record of this hearing. He argues that in the same way that the African Commission will not require a Victim to exhaust domestic remedies where it would be a threat to his or her life to do so, in the instant matter, the Victim cannot reasonably be required to return to the territory of the Respondent State in order to furnish the African Commission with this information, particularly as it is within the Respondent State's power to access and obtain these records. The Complainant points out, however, that the Respondent State has not provided the African Commission with the court record or any other supporting material to substantiate its claim. 113. In response to the Respondent State's submission that the allegations are unsubstantiated and lack evidentiary proof, the Complainant attaches reports of two medical examinations that were carried out the day after the Victim was first produced in court. The first is by Dr. P. Mwazani of the Accident and Emergency Department of the State-owned Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals and the second is by Dr. Douglas Gwatizo of the private Avenues Clinic in Harare. He states that both of these reports were attached to the original Communication and re-submitted with this submission for the African Commission's convenience. 114. The Complainant also submits a medical and psychological report carried out by Professor Han Petter Hougen, Chief Forensic Pathologist at the University of Copenhagen , Denmark and Dr. Onder Ozkalipci, MD Forensic Physician and Medical Director at the International Rehabilita don Council for Victims of Torture in Denmark; a psychological report carried out by Mr. Malose Langa, a Lecturer at the school of Human and Community Development at the University of Witswatersrand in South Africa, and a Consultant Psychologist at the Trauma Clinic at the Center for Studies for Violence and Reconciliation in South Africa who has been providing counselling to the Complainant and an affidavit by Dr Anthony Reeller, a Psychologist and Director of the Research and Advocacy Unit in Harare. 115. He argues that the findings of all three medical reports and three psychological reports are consistent with the Victim's allegations that he was subjected to torture and other ill-treatment. The Complainant states that the medical report of the State-owned Parirenvatwa Group of Hospital of 17 January 2003 recorded several injuries, including tenderness, a laceration and scratches on the Complainant's right and left forearm; tenderness of both calf muscles, his left foot, neck and orally; and urinary tract infection (UTI). He states that the medical report prepared by Dr. Gwatidzo of the privately-run Avenues Clinic, Harare of 17 January 2003 recorded a burnt nail of the second toe of the Complainant's left foot; bruises on his left forearm; as well as a periodontal erythma on his second and third right upper molar teeth. The Complainant states that Dr. Gwatidzo writes in his report that these injuries were mostly caused by trauma, burns and several blows - that the level of force used to inflict such injuries as 'severe' and the permanent injuries as 13