the Complainant, identifies 54 states as having participated in the alleged rendition program. Among the 54 states, are Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya. These countries lie between Tanzania and Djibouti and the Complainant could have been flown to any one of those countries since they equally are reported to have participated in the alleged rendition program and other counter-terrorism measures. 157. Moreover, as will be shown below, the Complainant’s own description of the identities of some of the people who kept guard over him (whom he repeatedly refers to as from the Horn of Africa) would perfectly suit persons from those countries. In the Commission’s view, the impossibility of the alleged aircraft flying the distance between Dar es Salaam and Djibouti, and the possibility that he might have been flown to any of the other countries cast considerable doubt on the possibility that the Complainant could have landed in Djibouti as opposed to those other countries identified above. This underscores the need for more reliable evidence pointing to the only reasonable conclusion that he was flown to Djibouti other than any of those countries. 158. Reverting to the issue of signatures, the Commission notes that it is the signature on the Notice to Prohibited Immigrant that appears roughly similar to the Complainant’s signature in his Declaration. The Commission supposes it is the ‘Notice to Prohibited Immigrant’ that the Complainant alleges was read to him and he was made to sign at the Tanzanian immigration offices without vetting its contents. This document indicates that he was to be deported by air. It does not mention the destination. Thus whereas the Notice to Prohibited Immigrant may be evidence that the Complainant was to be deported by air, it cannot be evidence that he departed by air to Djibouti. 159. Regarding the deposition of the Assistant Director of Immigration Services to the effect that the Complainant was deported and escorted to Djibouti as a destination of his choice, the Commission is not convinced that this is more probable than not in light of the fact that the Complainant has fervently insisted in his submissions that Djibouti was a perfectly strange country to him as he had never had any connection with it in his life. It is difficult for the Commission to rely on the deposition of the Assistant Director of Immigration Services in this regard when the Complainant himself suggests that Djibouti could not possibly have been his destination of choice. Moreover, given the clandestine nature of the rendition program characterised by concealment to the victim of his whereabouts, the Commission has difficulty believing that the Complainant could have been told the truth about his whereabouts. The Commission does not find the depositions by the Assistant Director of Immigration Services to be reliable. 31