from funded repatriation. The Respondent States opines that given the Complaint's experience working in human rights discipline, she had the information requisite to devise her story at her disposal. The Respondent State prays for the Commission to find that no violations of the Charter or Maputo Protocol have occurred; that the Respondent State has at all times exercised its due diligence obligations; that the Complainant has failed to adduce the requisite evidence; that the Complainant has failed to justify her claim for reparations and alternatively that the Commission defer its findings on reparation per Rule 121 and finally that she pursues civil claims in the Namibian Courts. THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS ON ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CHARTER AND 4(2)(G) OF THE MAPUTO PROTOCOL The Commission's Analysis on the Merits 126. Having considered the submissions of the Parties on the merits, the Commission will analyse the arguments and evidence furnished by them. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Africa n Charter and Article 4(2)(g) of The M aputo Protocol 127. The Complainant alleges violations of Articles 5 of the African Charter and 4(2)(g) of the Maputo Protocol. At the core of their Complaint is the alleged violation of the victim's right to respect of her inherent human dignity and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment protected under Article 5 of the African Charter. Both Articles concern the prohibition of "All forms of exploitation, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment", however Article 4 2(G) of the Maputo Protocol protections a r ~ ~- om a gendered perspective, focusing on T.I.P as a particular form of O'Uel, inhu,z,n.ffi' r degrading treatment. In vie_w_of this, the Cornrnissi~n will_ consider)he a~e.gation\ of Article 1285of ilieA:::~;'~;:::::,::~::::::i::~:e1::.2:t )o_'" ": . ' ) Protocol 0 Even; individual shall have the right to the respe < Jf¥rdl 1znherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. 1s of exploitation 28