shift to the Respondent State as long as the applicant makes a prima facie case of violation.64 140. The Court observes from the record of proceedings that when recording the extra judicial statement, the District Magistrate observed that,65 the First Applicant “had small wounds on his fingers, on his hands, on his face and on the knees. They were healing. They remain, after he was beaten by the police of Benacco, when he was arrested.” When it came to the Second Applicant, the Court observes from the record of proceedings that he reported the torture to the District Magistrate who observed that the Applicant, “had small wounds and that he was beaten by the Police during the arrest. He had wounds on his back and hands.” 141. The Court further notes that the only action the District Magistrate took to address his observations and the report of torture, was to record his observations on the Applicants appearance. He did not go further to order for an investigation into how the wounds were sustained or for them to undergo a medical examination. Furthermore, once the Applicants adduced prima facie evidence of ill-treatment or torture, the burden automatically shifted to the Respondent State to prove the contrary. This Court asserts that the District Magistrate bore the duty to provide the Applicants with adequate protection upon being arrested as suspected criminals, and to conduct an investigation into how they sustained the injuries and, finally, to bring the culprits to book. 142. Given that the District Magistrate failed to order prompt investigations into the alleged abuse, the Court considers that the Respondent State failed in its duty to investigate allegations of abusive cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, provided for under Article 5 of the Charter, due to the inactions of its agent, the District Magistrate. 64 65 See Onyachi and Charles Njoka v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 142-145. Record of Proceedings, page 57/42. 41