80. In Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa v. Sudan,20 the African Commission stated that its long-standing practice, in cases of human rights violations, is that the burden of proof rests on the government.21 That is when the Complainant has laid down evidence of having exhausted or attempted to exhaust local remedies. In those Communications, the African Commission had stated that if the government provides no evidence to contradict an allegation of human rights violation made against it, the African Commission will take it as proven, or at the least probable or plausible. The Commission stated that it is well-established jurisprudence of the Commission that where allegations go entirely unchallenged,22 it will proceed to decide on the facts presented.23 81. The Commission is of the view that, in the present Communication, it is the duty of the Respondent State to identify the perpetrators of the alleged violations and that it is unreasonable for the authorities to have expected that the protesters identify particular police officers who allegedly assaulted them in the park before filing a complaint. To the extent that the law denies these Victims from accessing the Respondent State’s judicial system to seek redress with respect to the human rights violations they have suffered, it is unreasonable and at odds with the duty to investigate serious human rights violations under the African Charter. 82. In Monim Elgak, Osman Hummeida and Amir Suliman (represented by FIDH and OMCT) v. Sudan, 24 the African Commission held that Complainants are Communication 48/90-50/91-52/91-89/93, 13th Activity Report: 1999 – 2000. (See, ACHPR/59/91, ACHPR/60/91, ACHPR/64/92, 68/92, 78/92, ACHPR/87/93, ACHPR/101/93). 22 Italics for emphasis. 23 See the Commission's decisions in Communications 59/91, 60/91, 64/92, 68/92, 78/92, 87/93 and 101/93. See also Communications 275/03: Article 19 v Eritrea, 22nd Activity Report: Nov 2006 – May 2007. Eritrea did not deny the Complainant’s contention that the detainees are being held incommunicado, with no access to legal representation or contact with their families, and as the [African] Commission has enunciated in many of its previous decisions, where allegations are not disputed by the State involved, the Commission may take the facts as provided by the Complainant as a give. Nor does the political situation described by Eritrea excuse its actions, as Article 5, permits no restrictions or limitations on the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The Commission thus finds that Eritrea has violated Article 5, by holding the journalists and political dissidents incommunicado without allowing them access to their families. 24 Communication 379/09 at para 59 20 21 19