5. Complainant’s Response to the Respondent State’s Supplemental Arguments 100. The Complainant submitted further written observations on the Respondent State’s Supplemental Arguments. To the extent that these further observations raised anything new, the Complainant maintains that the testimonies of the Complainant’s father and wife disputing the validity of the Departure Declaration Card tendered by the Tanzanian Authorities in the habeas corpus proceedings should not be accorded any weight as they were acting under extreme stress. Moreover the Complainant himself states in his testimony that he signed deportation documents. On the other hand the Complainant submits that in accordance with its jurisprudence, the Commission should not evaluate facts which have already by evaluated by domestic. 101. Furthermore, the Complainant stresses that the totality of evidence presented by the Complainant is more than sufficient to establish prima facie the allegation that he was detained in Djibouti. In this regard the Complainant refers to his own testimony that a guard told him that he was in Djibouti; that one guard admitted being Djiboutian; that the Complainant himself saw the picture of the Djiboutian President on the wall in the interrogation room; that Tanzanian immigration authorities made it clear in the habeas corpus proceedings that he had been deported to Djibouti. 102. Moreover, so argues the Complainant, the Respondent State has failed to demonstrate that it undertook an effective investigation which could have unearthed vital information. 6. Respondent States Reply to Complainant’s Response on Admissibility 103. Bearing in mind the additional evidence submitted by the Complainant in his Reply to the Respondent State’s Arguments, the Respondent State submitted and the Commission allowed a Reply on Admissibility to allow for observations on the three additional declarations and others sources cited by the Complainant. 104. To the extent that the Respondent State presents any new submissions that are relevant at this stage of the Communication, it introduces a second affidavit of the Chief Prosecutor of Djibouti which is to the effect that the investigations entailed questioning airport personnel at the only Djiboutian Ambouli International Airport, immigration officers, officials in the armed forces, police and other security agencies. These investigations did not yield any information that the Complainant was ever in Djibouti. The Chief Prosecutor states that he went further to inquire from the U.S. Government if the Complainant had been detained at Camp Lamonnier, and the U.S. 19