of persons who committed the alleged violations, and testimony of witnesses could corroborate the arguments put forward by the Complainant. 64. However, in the absence of the annexes mentioned by the Complainant, the Commission cannot help but agree with the Respondent State that the Communication is vague. The reason being that the allegations are not substantiated, and also do not provide enough ground to establish the element of fear as claimed by the Complainant. This position was also taken by the African Commission in Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe,9 whose facts are similar to the present Communication. 65. In Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe, the Complainant claimed that that he left his country out of fear for his life due to intimidation, harassment and torture. He described how he was treated while in detention, noting amongst other things that he was denied food, and that the conditions in the cells were bad – smelly, small, and that the toilets were overflowing with urine and other human waste.10 The Commission ruled that the Complainant simply made general allegations without corroborating them with documentary evidence or testimony of others.11 The Commission further held that the Complainant: …has not shown…the danger he found himself in that necessitated his fleeing the country. Without concrete evidence to support the allegations made by the complainant, the Commission cannot hold the Respondent State responsible for whatever harassment, intimidation and threats that 9 n 7 above. 10 Ibid, para 76. 11 n above. 17