Government provided verbal assurances that it never detained the Complainant in Djibouti. 105. With regard to statements made by Tanzanian officials during the habeas corpus proceedings, the Respondent State wonders how Tanzanian officials could have deported a Yemen citizen to its territory as an alleged destination of his choice without obtaining prior permission and when the Complainant himself had never been to Djibouti. 106. Commenting on the Complainant’s set of circumstantial evidence indicating that that he was detained at Camp Lamonnier, the Respondent State observes first that the Complainant’s testimony is inconsistent with the reality regarding the location of Camp Lamonnier. In particular, referring to a satellite image of the Ambouli International Airport (introduced with the Reply) where Camp Lamonnier is located, the Respondent State observes that driving from the airport to Camp Lamonnier cannot take up to twenty let alone thirty minutes as the Complainant alleges was the case on his arrival and depart from Djibouti. It stressed that the drive should take no more than a minute or two from the airstrip to anywhere else at the base of Camp Lamonnier. 107. Secondly, using the same satellite image, the Respondent State observes that the description by the Complainant that the place of his secret detention was likely in a residential area is inconsistent with geographic realities of Camp Lamonnier, which is located far from any residential areas. Even more strikingly, so observes the Respondent State, is the fact that the Complainant never stated that he heard any sounds of airplanes as one would expect in the immediate vicinity of a busy civilian and military airport such as Ambouli International Airport. It maintains, that the Complainant has not presented any reliable evidence that he was at Camp Lamonnier, let alone anywhere in Djibouti. 108. With respect to the reports by various organisations on which the Complainant relies to corroborate that he was detained in Djibouti as part of the U.S. Government’s extraordinary rendition program, the Respondent State, observes that such reports are weak in that they cautiously do not conclusively establish Djibouti’s involvement in the alleged U.S. Government’s extraordinary rendition program. Similarly it argues that media reports are no more than a recycling of the Complainant’s own interviews with media outlets and as submitted in the present Communication. 20