Committee in Hakan Goekce et al. v. Austria, which affirmed due diligence when considering complaints on the failure of the State to effectively investigate and prosecute cases on violence against women. 37 Citing the decisions of the Commission in Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum v Zimbabwe 38 and Egijptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v Egypt39 , the Complainants contend that the Respondent State is responsible for the violations of Article 5 of the Charter and Article 4(2)(g) of the Maputo Protocol perpetrated against the victim by private actors because it failed to do its due diligence and prevent, investigate, prosecute, and punish the acts of violence. 111. The Complainants allege that the Victim was raped; forced into sexual acts that involved physical bondage and the exercise of dominance; 40 had her hair pulled; was beaten, kicked, slapped and punched; forced to get into physical fight with another young woman, while the rapist observed; her breast was burnt with cigarettes and forcibly injected and drugged with unknown substances, as a result she would lose consciousness for hours. The Complainants argue that treatment against the victim amounts to physical and emotional trauma and the victim was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 112. The Complainants aver that the Respondent State became aware that the victim was a victim of trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation, when she first reported at the Central Police Station on 19 October 2017, following the victim's escape from her captors on 18 October 2017.They further argue that according to the affidavit of Joshua Ndidalewa (Annex 7), Commissioner Agas (Annex 5) and Mr. Dumeni (Annex 4), the police interrogated her and threatened her with criminal sanctions, and her request to be sent to the Kenyan High Commission was refused. It is also submitted that the laptop and cellphone that the victim handed over to the police as evidence was surrendered to one of the traffickers, whom they thought was her father. The aforementioned cellphone was submitted to the victim's forensic investigator, who in six days uncovered evidence corroborating her human trafficking allegations, whereas the police in Namibia had both the phone and the aforementioned la · ,, . . uld not derive any evidence. The Complainant avers that the Victim.' s fotensiu"'"' · ti.gator also fc;m nd evidence of spyware on the victim's phone, ~ ide '3 w · ,., o Q again had n6t been discovered by the Police in the Respo <;.f e9 Stat , T'h C plainants contend that by the 14 th of June in 2018, the pol' ii e4U es-po tate had ~ ,, ij% ,s.Q 37 Communications o. 5/2005; Banu Akbak et al. v. Austria, 33 Communication o. 245/02 (2006) . 39 Communication o. 323/2006 40 " he would be suspended from the ceiling, tied to chairs" 23 0 . 6/2005 ·U ~ /Pf '9~ ~ c," ~l:r ,,_~ "-~, k:-4