picture. He lastly states that one day he experienced an earthquake which was confirmed by a nodding gesture by one of his guards, and subsequently by data from the International Seismological Centre which reports that on 4 January 2004 there was an earthquake of magnitude 5.0 centred on Djibouti. 164. On its part the Respondent State observes that the Complainant does not describe the impact he felt. It observes further that an earthquake of the stated magnitude could have reverberated in the neighbouring countries including Yemen which is just across the Red Sea, or indeed other countries around Djibouti. In that regard the Respondent State argues that the earthquake cannot prove that he was in Djibouti as he might have been in any of the countries surrounding Djibouti. In the same vein, the Respondent State observes that the Complainant is not firm about what he was told regarding being in Djibouti. It also maintains that the general description of his guards as being from the Horn of Africa cannot be relied upon to conclusively prove that he was in Djibouti. 165. Having carefully reviewed all the material put before it by both parties, the Commission is equally not satisfied that the Complainant’s version of his experiences at the place of his secret detention conclusively establishes that he was in Djibouti to the exclusion of the other alleged participating countries. For one thing, save for the alleged picture of the president, the rest of the description of what he observed could fit in Somalia and Ethiopia, among the countries reported to have participated in the rendition. 166. Regarding the earthquake, it is interesting to note as observed by the Respondent State that the Complainant does not describe the magnitude of the impact he felt. Indeed, on his word, he had to confirm with the guard whether what he had felt was an earthquake. The Commission is unable to make a definite finding that the Complainant was in Djibouti from his alleged experience of an earthquake, especially when the very means by which he alleges he was transported to Djibouti are of considerably doubtful veracity. 167. Regarding the alleged picture of the president in the interrogation room, it is important to observe that the Complainant has gone to great lengths stating that he believes he was detained at Camp Lamonnier. According to both parties, Camp Lamonnier is run by the US Government under a Status of Forces Agreement between the USA and Djibouti. The Camp enjoys the same diplomatic status as an embassy of a country. The Commission wonders whether such premises could then bear the picture of the president of Djibouti. Further, assuming he was indeed at 33