incommunicado and subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment before being further subjected to refoulement out of Djibouti into the hands of the U.S. Government’s agents. 95. The Complainant states that given the clandestine design of the extraordinary rendition program to which the Complainant was subjected, information is kept so tightly secret that access is highly restricted. In this regard the Complainant invites the Commission to take this into account in adopting the appropriate standard of proof for assessing whether a prima facie case of violations has been made out. 96. Regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Complainant reiterates his earlier arguments: that during his detention, domestic remedies were unavailable to him. In this regard the Complainant states that the violations he suffered were made possible because under the ‘Agreement between the Government of the USA and the Government of Djibouti” (2003 Status of Forces Agreement, SOFA), the latter allowed the former unimpeded entry into Djiboutian territory through Camp Lamonnier. Further under the same Agreement, air crafts and motor vehicles were allowed to enter, move freely within the territory of Djibouti, and exit without any search or other form of oversight by Djiboutian authorities. 97. The Complainant argues that the immunity granted to the USA Government personnel at Camp Lamonnier under the SOFA Agreement, and the immunities generally available under international law for foreign states meant that Djibouti gave the USA Government personnel “carte balance” (sic) to use its territory to illegally detain and interrogate individuals. 98. Regarding post-facto remedies, the Complainant also reiterates his earlier arguments concerning the unavailability, ineffectiveness and insufficiency, including in particular on the basis that the Respondent State has not undertaken an effective investigation to discover more facts on the basis of which criminal and civil remedies could be pursued before domestic courts in Djibouti. 99. In response to the Respondent State’s arguments on the time taken before submitting this Communication, the Complainant again reiterates his earlier arguments, and adds that the facts that he had had to locate his family to Yemen and reconstruct his life altogether. He states that this occupied the three years that elapsed between his release from prison and the presentation of this Communication. 18