circumstantial evidence the Complainant relies on to demonstrate that he was in Djibouti. 90. The gist of the Respondent State’s observations is that the two documents confirm that there is no credible evidence to show that the Complainant was ever in Djibouti. In this regard the Respondent State argues that the Depart Declaration Card is a fake on the face of it, and as challenged by the Complainant’s father in the habeas corpus proceedings in Tanzania. 91. Moreover, the Respondent State maintains, it could not find any evidence that any flight arrived in Djibouti from the Republic of Tanzania on 27 December 2003 as alleged by the Complainant. In fact, it so states, the alleged flight operated by Tanzanair, a private air Charter Company, is never known to fly to Djibouti, and there is no evidence that it flew to Djibouti on 27 December, 2003 as alleged by the Complainant or at any other time. 92. It further argues that the ruling by the High Court of the Republic of Tanzania on the habeas corpus application shows that the Court did not concern itself with where the Complainant had been deported. Rather the Court was concerned with whether he was still in the custody of Tanzanian immigration authorities, which the Court did not find as such. Accordingly, the Respondent State reiterates that there is no evidence that the Complainant was ever in Djibouti. 4. Complainant’s Reply to the Respondent State’s Arguments 93. In response to the Respondent States challenge on compatibility in terms of Article 56(2) of the African Charter, the Complainant argues that the only question at this stage of the Communication is whether he has made out a prima facie case of violations, which entails allegations which if proven, would constitute violations of the right guaranteed under the Charter. He maintains that the evidence required for this purpose can only be of a preliminary nature, and the applicable standard of proof to be met by such evidence is lower than the standard employed at the merits stage. 94. In further support of the allegation that he was in Djibouti, the Complainant attached to his Reply; three further declaration of Cori Crider, John Sifton, and Clara Gutteridge being experts on the alleged U.S. rendition program. The purport of these declarations is to show that Djibouti including the US base in Djibouti called Camp Lamonnier was used as a conduit for transferring people captured under the US Government’s extraordinary rendition program. The declarations are also meant to corroborate the Complainant’s assertion that while in Djibouti he was held 17