proceedings before the High Court of Tanzania instituted on the Complainant’s behalf. 149. In this vein the Commission recalls that it adopts the approach that it is for the courts of State Parties and not for the Commission to evaluate the facts in a particular case and unless it is shown that the courts’ evaluation of the facts were manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, the [African] Commission cannot substitute the decision of the courts with that of its own20 150. However, the circumstances of this case do not permit the application of that approach. For the main, where facts are evaluated and established by courts of one State, such facts will not be taken as granted with regard to another State which was not a party in the proceedings before the courts of the first State, and particularly where such facts are contested by the second State in proceedings before the Commission. The Commission will therefore conduct its own evaluation of the facts alleged in the habeas corpus proceedings in Tanzania to the extent that they are contested by the Respondent State in the present Communication. 151. Firstly, the Complainant states that he believes he was in Djibouti because he was deported from the Republic of Tanzania to that country. To support this, he relies first on the record of the habeas corpus proceedings instituted on his behalf in Tanzania. The record included the habeas corpus application supported by ‘affidavits’ sworn by the Complainant’s father and wife; an opposing affidavit of the Assistant Director of Immigration exhibiting a ‘Departure Declaration Card’ and a Notice to Prohibited Immigrant’ purportedly signed by the Complainant on his deportation; and the ruling of the High Court of Tanzania on the habeas corpus application. The opposing affidavit and the exhibits thereto were meant to prove that he was no longer in the custody of Tanzanian officials and that he had been deported to Djibouti, a country of the Complainant’s choice. To signify the Complainant’s choice in this regard, the complainant is alleged to have signed the Departure Declaration Card and the Notice to Prohibited Immigrant. 152. Notably, the applicants in the habeas corpus proceedings disputed the signature, but the High Court of Tanzania opined that the validity of the signature was a question for a different consideration to the one it was called upon to decide on the habeas corpus application: whether he was still in the custody of the Tanzanian Immigration Authorities. Communication 240/01 - Interights et al. (on behalf of Mariette Sonjaleen Bosch) v Botswana (2003) para. 29 20 29