interview the police officers who participated in the beatings and order that an investigation be carried out. Instead, seven (7) years later, after the wounds and the resulting scars had become imperceptible, the High Court purported to weigh his testimony against that of a police officer who was one of his torturers. 135. He claims the High Court rejected his testimony and admitted his coerced confession as evidence at trial, thereby denying him a remedy for the torture he suffered, and thereby allowing the authorities to profit from their abuse. He argues that this compounded the violation of his right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and calls for a remedy from this Court. * 136. The Respondent State did not pronounce itself on this issue. *** 137. Pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter, every individual has the right to have his cause heard and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal. 138. The Court observes that this allegation relates to the Magistrate’s failure to conduct an investigation after the Applicants reported ill-treatment by the State authorities. 139. In light of the submissions made by the Applicants and the Respondent State’s lack of submissions thereon, the Court considers that the determination of the Applicants allegation has a bearing on the evidence. In this regard, the Court restates its position in the earlier cited case of Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. United Republic of Tanzania that in circumstances where the Applicants are in custody and unable to prove their allegations because the means to verify the same are likely to be in the control of the State, the burden of proof will 40