156. The Respondent State also submit 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 availed to give credence to these allegations. The African Commission rejects that statement as incorrect. As the African Commission has stated supra, it has incontrovertible proof that the Respondent State is aware of the serious allegations made against it and did receive from the Secretariat of the African Commission all the supporting medical documents and affidavits made available by the Complainant. It chose not to address in detail all the allegations of torture and ill-treatment allegedly meted out to the Victim. 157. Rather curiously, the Respondent State request the African Commission to discountenance the Victim's allegation that he had been receiving counseling for trauma at the Centre for Studies for Violence and Reconciliation in South Africa as not evidence that he was tortured. The Respondent State admits that the Victim was arrested and detained for a crime and brought to court within the statutory period. It states that perhaps it could be the fact that his arrest may have traumatized him and not that he was ill-treated. The African Commission is at a loss with that statement. Attached to the Complainant's allegations that the Victim was tortured and ill-treated by agents of the Respondent State are medical statements and affidavits including two medical reports that the Complainant said 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. Both of these reports were also hand delivered to the Respondent State (which it duly signed) by the Secretariat of the African Commission. 158. The Complainant also submitted 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 Rehabilitation 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 counseling to the Complainant and an affidavit by Dr Anthony Reeller, a Psychologist and Director of the Research and Advocacy Unit in Harare. 159. The African Commission agrees that the Complainant has submitted more than adequate evidence to support the Victim's allegations of torture and ill-treatment, which at least should have prompted an official investigation. The African Commission also agrees with the Complainant that in seeking to refute the allegations, it is not sufficient for the Respondent State to simply argue that they are unsubstantiated when they are supported by range of documentation. Rather, the Respondent State must provide evidence to the contrary. 160. In Communications 64/92-68/92-78/92_8AR: Krishna Achuthan (on behalf of Aleke Banda),Amnesty International (on behalf of Orton and Vera Chirwa), Amnesty International (on behalf of Orton and Vera Chinoa) v Malawi, the African Commission stated that acts of beating and torture that took place in prisons in Malawi was in contravention of the African Charter. It also stated that aspects of the treatment of Vera and Orton Chirwa such as excessive solitary confinement, shackling within a cell, extremely poor quality food and denial of access to adequate medical care, were also in contravention of Article 5. 161. Similarly in Communications 48/90-50/91-52/91-89/93: Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa v Sudan,27 the African Commission stated that the Government of Sudan has failed to deal with the very serious allegations of torture and mistreatment made against it. The African Commission stated that since the acts of torture alleged have not been refuted or explained by the Government of Sudan, the African Commission finds that such acts illustrate, jointly and severally, the Government's responsibility for violations of the provisions of Article 5 of the African Charter. The African Commission went on to note that it appreciates the fact that the Government brought some officials to trial for torture, but the scale of the Government's measures is not commensurate with the magnitude of the abuses. The African Commission stated that punishment of torturers is important, but so also are preventive measures such as halting of incommunicado detention, effective remedies under a transparent, independent and efficient legal system, and ongoing investigations into allegations of torture.28 In the instant case, the African Commission has not been given any evidence by Respondent State that any sort of investigation took place. 162. In Communications 54/91-61/91-96/93-98/93-164/97_196/97-210/98 Malawi African Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme and RADDHO, Collectif des veuves et ayants-Droit, Association mauritanienne des droits de l'Homme v Mauritania, the 20