including a forensic medical investigation." 78 There are several anomalies that merit a closer look at the investigation conducted by the Respondent State. 153. The Commission notes specifically that the Respondent State seem to have taken an arm chair approach in investigating Daniel Mwingi and Kennedy Maurice Mativo, who according to the victim was the person responsible for her alleged trafficking. It is noted that Kennedy Maurice Mativo was never once summoned to the police to give a statement despite seemingly being the designated perpetrator according to the evidence of the victim. Inst ad Kennedy Maurice Mativo purports to have voluntarily approached the police when he saw reports of the victim's alleged T.I.P on television. 79 154. Furthermore, the record indicates that on the 10 th of November 2017, despite being the victim's identified perpetrator, the Police still gave back the laptop coll cted as evidence from the victim to him, because he had identified himself as the victim's father. 80 The Complainant also submitted that a forensic examination of the same phone which the Respondent State argued was in the victim's possession at all times, negating her claims of captivity, was in fact embedded with trackers and spyware. 81 This, they submit is another oversight on the Police's part. The Commission also notes that the Police seem to have taken it as fact that Maurice could not have been responsible or complicit in the T.I.P of the victim simply because he had identified himself as his father. The Police appear to have taken for granted how the perpetrator identifying himself as the victim's father. The Police in the Respondent State took for granted the risk of Mr. Kennedy Maurice identifying himself as the victim's father, simply to deflect suspicion from himself and frustrating the investigation. This is especially concerning given that the feedback received from the Kenyan Government was to the effect that the birth certificate pres~nted by Kennedy Maurice to the amibian Police did not contain the correct name of the victim. 82 It is also worth notin that on 31 st of October 2017, the Kenyan INTERPOL in Nairobi informed the' CB•1m indhoek that they ( t, ..~ believed the Kennedy Maurice had a case to answer. 83 '·, ' 1a Istanbul, para 193 79 Respondent State Submissions Annex 19 Statemen t of Kennedy M 80 Res pendent State Submission Annex 2 s1 Complainant' s Submission, Annex 14 82 Respondent State Submissions Annex 17, Correspondence from the Windhoek 83 Respondent State Submissions, Annex 6, Correspondence from I TERPOL Nairobi to NCB Windho k 37