protection and psycho-social support. It is further submitted that the victim was placed in protective police custody from 14 October 2017 to 23 October 2017, because the Respondent State was of the view that she was a danger to herself and those at the Friendly Haven Shelter, and out of respect of her apprehension to being at the Shelter. The Respondent State further contends that the victim was never refused access or assistance of the Kenyan High Commission and their evidence for this is the fact that she had several visits and was able to make practical arrangements for her repatriation. Regarding the victim's need for medical attention, the Respondent State argues that the victim never informed the police of her injuries, and further that when she went to the police to file a report, the victim was wearing a "sleeveless black top" and "no scars or injury were observed" by one Mr Ndidalelwa, whom the State claims to have assisted her. 124. The Respondent States postulates that the criminal investigation was instituted on the 1 t of October 2017 and a criminal case (reference number 252/03/2020) was opened and is still ongoing. They further enlist, the COVID-19 pandemic and unresponsiveness from the Kenyan Interpol as explanations for delays. The Respondent State also submits that in addition to the ongoing criminal investigations, the victim could have sought civil proceedings as well as private prosecution. Additionally, the Respondent State argues that the Namibian police force and judiciary are trained on T.I.P and the courts have had cases on T.I.P prosecuted both at High and Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Respondent State contends that the investigation led to the identification of the perpetrator as well as a submission to the office of the Prosecutor General for further guidance. 125. The Respondent State takes issue with the Complainant's evidence, they argue that the Complainant's medical report did not indicate the doctor's qualifications and that the Complainant had only one compelling witness statement and nothing else to corroborate her accounts of events. They also allege that the Complainant's allegations are baseless and unsubstantiated and hould be dismissed on that basis, citing as authority, the decision ommission in 49 Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim v Sudan; Givemore Char· re-p n~~e "'te Gabriel / -0 • Shumba) v Republic of Zimbabwe; 50 and David -~ des epi: n't by the Centre for Human Rights) v Angola51 • The Respon ~ t;J, te takes w that the Complainant manufactured all her claims and w ,..ilFe ally.· the y, ran into financial problems and devised the story of her \ · .:;~;1m o enefit %,1, ~ # ~~ 49 Comm unica tion 386/10 50 Communica tion 351/2007 51 Communication 413/ 12 27 ~., " oES l"\.t':>