174. While the number of deaths is not clear, the estimates provided by the State at twenty-seven deaths and the Complainants of “at least 30 deaths” are close enough to not constitute a vast disagreement on the facts. However, the Complainants and the State have different versions of the cause of death. The Complainants aver that the deaths were “caused by the disproportionate and deliberate use of force by riot police on unarmed civilians”, that “there is no evidence that the people in the park constituted any threat to the police officers or public safety” and further that “there is no evidence that the police operation was planned with a view to minimizing incidental loss of life”. The first Victim, who lost both his wife and child during the protest, indicated that when he identified their bodies at the mortuary he noted injury marks on their bodies, and that the death certificates indicated death from asphyxia and injuries. 175. The State on the other hand states that the incidents occurred because the protestors resisted and confronted the forces charged with transferring them to another shelter equipped for such a purpose as well as “their pushing and running”, resulting in deaths and casualties among the protestors and casualties among the police. The State further asserts that the protestors threw empty bottles, pans, big wooden sticks, gas cook bottles and fire balls towards the troops and showed violent resistance against the troops during the process of dispersal. According to the State the report of the General Prosecution Authority following autopsies of the deceased determined that death was due to asphyxia, and the injuries sustained were those generally caused by falling and being trampled on. 176. The Parties agree that the death was as a result of asphyxia and injuries. The first question for determination is whether the injuries causing death were sustained as a result only of being trampled on during the stampede, or also resulted from direct use of force by the police. According to the State the autopsy reports determined that the injuries were as a result of falling over and being trampled on. However, the State did not submit any evidence to support this assertion. On the other hand, the Complainant submits that the first Victim was informed by another protester that he saw the Victim’s wife and son beaten to death, and all the Victims also testified that they were beaten by the police armed with batons and sticks. It is a well-established principle of the Commission’s jurisprudence that where a human rights violation is asserted 46