Where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to illtreatment […]. It is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how the injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention […].88 169. The African Commission wishes to state that under such circumstance, the burden now shifts to the Respondent State to convince this Commission that the allegations of torture raised by the Complainants is unfounded. The context of the Victims incommunicado detention and interrogation is such that available evidence is necessarily limited. However, the allegations of torture and ill-treatment are supported by the victim‟s independent testimonies of similar ill-treatment. Their allegations fit also with the fact that they were held incommunicado, hidden from the outside world during the 69 months of pre-trial detention, and that access to medical professionals was persistently denied until during trial itself. 170. In the present case, the Respondent State has made no attempt to give a satisfactory explanation of how the injuries were sustained, or to take any steps to investigate and address the surrounding circumstances. The trial court did nothing to follow up on questions raised in the FMA reports or the Victims‟ testimonies. 171. In the light of the above the African Commission concludes that the marks on the victims evidencing the use of torture could only have been inflicted by the Respondent State. 88 Colibaba v. Moldova (Appl. no. 29089/06), ECtHR, Judgment of 23 October 2007, para. 43. 50