all opposing parties and their respective defense counsels, who were also informed about the developments of the investigations. 111. It submits further that the security agencies have also taken all necessary security measures, whether in terms of securing the demonstrations, or disengaging the demonstrators in accordance with the specified rules and providing the Victims with the necessary level of protection. It adds that the police also exercised their duties in receiving Complaints from demonstrators, filing the necessary reports, and immediately referring the case to the PPO. 112. The Respondent State argues that failure to supply the PPO with the information required coupled with the inconsistencies in the account given by the Victims on the incidents that took place during the demonstrations, cannot be a reason for their inability to identify the perpetrators of the misdemeanor of beating them up. According to the Respondent State, this only indicates that "The circumstances surrounding the incident characterized by a large crowd and the psychological and physical conditions of the female journalists did not permit them to precisely recollect the sequence of events, which in turn did not help the investigation authority to identify the perpetrators." The Respondent State submits that notwithstanding the above, the PPO and the police took necessary measures to investigate the incident. 113. Furthermore, according to the Respondent State, the disparities make it evidently clear that the decision reached by the PPO, after its detailed and scrupulous investigations which showed that there were no grounds for initiating criminal proceedings "temporarily" due to the inability to identify the perpetrators was logical and sound. More so, the perpetrators could not be identified and all those accused by the Complainants, including the police and the others, were not present at the scene of the incident at the material time. The Complainants' Additional Submissions on the Merits 103. In response to the Respondent State's submissions about the "Existence of several discrepancies between what the Victims submitted in their testimonies before the PPO, and what they allege in their application before the African Commission," the Complainants argue that the Respondent State only sets out three discrepancies, while inferring that there are more discrepancies which it does not substantiate. They submit that the instances set out by the Respondent State refer to omissions rather than contradictions. 104. According to the Complainants, the omissions mentioned above are due to the conditions under which the statements before the PPO were taken, and that not all the information that they provided was considered or written down. They further contend that the instances detailed in the Respondent State's submission does not discharge it from its obligation to investigate human rights violations because the omission is not material enough to constitute a bar, by the victims, to an effective investigation. 105. The Complainants submit further that, the Respondent State placed too much reliance on the formal statements that the Victims made to the PPO and failed to have any regard to the context and circumstances within which the statements were made. the Complainants also attempt to clarify the discrepancies mentioned by the Respondent State in their additional submissions on the Merits:24 i. On the discrepancy concerning the Second Victim's omission to mention to the PPO that the wife of Mr. El Deeb led the demonstrations against them and that she was sprayed in the face by an Assailant, the Complainants submit that according to the Second Victim, the PPO did not record all the information provided. The Complainants indicate further that, according to the Second Victim, she spent a lot of time waiting for her statement to be taken by the PPO and that when it was finally taken, they did not make any record of evidence that she submitted; including CDs containing pictures and her torn clothes; ii. On the discrepancy concerning the Third Victim who refracted her accusations against officer Selim when she realised that she had been mistaken as to his identity, the Complainants state that this retraction was done in good faith. They explain that the Third Victim's colleagues named one of her attackers as Officer Selim, but did not know the name of her attacker, although she could recognise him. The Complainants state that the Third Victim said "I saw the same officer at another demonstration almost a year later and I recognised him. Another officer called out to him, and that is when I discovered that his name was not Nabil Selim;" 10