attacking the intellectual and moral integrity of the Mauritian Courts; and 3) the Complainant is using the Commission as a Court of Appeal for a matter which had been settled at the national level. 45. The Complainant submits that Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the African Charter have been violated. The Complainant does Commission disagrees with not substantiate how the the Respondent State Articles have that the been violated. The Commission is of the view that the Complainant in paragraphs 7 to 10 above clearly sets out the alleged irregularities in the process before the national courts which he avers violated the abovementioned rights, including the allegations of the Courts disallowing the Complainant from calling a witness, allowing hearsay evidence relation and to the the Communication dissimilar State's treatment secon etween objection, 'the must show a prima 'facie case. jurisprudence of the his case and Commission The similar notes Respondent Stat Commission which held that a prirna cases. that In the refers to facie violation has occurred "where the facts presented in the Complaint show that a human rights violation has conclusion likely that occurred. a human The Complaint should rights violation has be occurred one that compels the if not contradicted or rebutted by the Respondent State". 46. As noted above, the Cornmissio as held that the Complainant has presented facts which would likely amount to a human rights violation. The State did not submit any contradictory evidence to sh w that the facts presented were false. Thus the challenge by the State that these are mere allegations does not mean that a prima facie case has not been established. Complainants are expected at the merits stage of the Communication to provide full submissions and evidence on the alleged violations to rove their case on a balance of probabilities. While not making any determination on violations, the Commission thus finds that a prima Jacie case has been established. Additionally, the State has not substantiated its submission that the Complaint is "aimed at attacking the intellectual and moral integrity of the Mauritian Courts", and the Commission does not find any is using the suggestion to this effect in the Communication. 47. The third objection raised by the State is that the Complainant