227. The Repondent State did not address this allegation. 228. Applying its long-standing practice, that in cases of human rights violations, the burden of proof rests on the government, and where the government provides no evidence, as in the instant mattter, to contradict an allegation of human rights violation made against it, the Commission will take it as proven, or at the least probable or plausible. Charges were not Clear and Specific which Hampered their Speedy Trial 229. The Complainants submit that the charges filed against the Dergue Officials were not clear and specific which hampered their speedy trial. They argue that in many respects, the indictments were not as clear and succinct as they needed to be for the accused to understand them. They aver that this is a defect that goes to the form of the indictment and a violation of Articles 111 and 112 of the Ethiopian Criminal Procedure Code. 230. The Respondent State did not fully address this allegation. It merely stated that once the invesigation was completed, the Office of the SPO, began to charge the accused persons before the court of law. It stated that on 24 November 1994, the Office of the SPO brought a charge against Colonel Mengistu Hailemariam et al at the Federal High court. There were also thousands of charges of arbitrary arrest and illegal confiscation of property brought against the defendants. 231. An accused's ability to fully comprehend the charges brought against him is fundamental to a fair trial. In the instant matter, the African Commission will also state that in such serious mattter it is imperative that both the accused and their counsel are able to fully understand the charges. The Complainants have for example alleged that the fundamental problem with the indictments was that the details of the crimes were unclear because several concepts and legal doctrines were lumped together in one very long sentence. The respondent state did not challenge that allegation. 232. In its Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial, the African Commission outlined the factors relevant to what constitutes undue delay as including the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties, the conduct of other relevant authorities, whether an accused is detained pending proceedings, and the interest of the person at stake in the proceedings. However, since the Respondent State chose not to fully address this allegation, the Commission will take the allegation as proven, or at the least probable or plausible. 53