217. The right to an impartial hearing within a reasonable time is further reinforced by the Commission‟s Resolution on Fair trial, which provides that persons arrested or detained or facing criminal charges shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within reasonable time or to be released.59 The African Commission is unable to determine whether the delays in promptly concluding the trial in the instant case was due partly to the fact that the Respondent State dismantled almost all state institutions, including the court system, as the Respondent State has not specifically addressed this allegation. 218. Accordingly, the African Commission is left with no alternative but to apply its long-standing practice that if the government provides no evidence, as in the instant mattter, to contradict an allegation of human rights violation made against it, it will take it as proven, or at the least probable or plausible. Ambitious Nature of the Transitional Justice Ethiopia Pursued 219. The Complainants aver that justice was delayed and therefore denied by the very ambitious nature of the model of transitional justice the Respondent State pursued. The Complainant allege that the SPO had stated in February 1994 that it had tens times more evidence than needed to successfully prosecute several of the detained and many of the exiles for serious criminal offences. 220. Unfortunately, the Respondent State again chose not fully respond to this particular allegation. It commented generally that because of the multitude of crimes committed against humanity all over the country and the complexity involved in bringing all those responsible for these crimes to justice, the task would become, at the very least, daunting. In a statement that seem to support the allegation of the Complainant, the Respondent State said that during the trial process, while the total number of prosecution witnesses presented in the Mengistu HaileMariam case alone was 726, those of the defendants were 303, making the totaal number of witnesses to be heard by the court to be 1029. It further stated that the documentary evidences presented by both parties became heavily insurmounable when they presented their replies and counter-replies in adddition to the origainal charges constitutingg the several counts. 221. Again applying its long-standing practice, that in cases of human rights violations, the burden of proof rests on the government, and where the government provides no evidence, as in the instant mattter, to contradict an allegation of human rights violation made 59 See paragraph 2 (b) of ACHPR /Res.4(XI)92: Resolution on the Right to Recourse and Fair Trial (1992). 51