previous findings of the Commission, particularly in its decision relating to abuses committed under the Emergency Law in 2004 and 2005. 173. The Complainants further submit that the Victim’s injuries occurred while in detention, and evidence of ill-treatment has been presented, hence the burden of proof shifts to the Government to convince the Commission that the allegations of torture are unfounded. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State made no attempt to give a satisfactory explanation as to how the Victim sustained the various documented injuries. The Complainants allege that the Government recognises that the Victim suffers from lumbar and sacral cartilage slippage, but provides no explanation for how those injuries occurred. The Complainants conclude that in view of the available evidence, the injuries were inflicted by the Respondent State. Alleged violation of Articles 5 and 1 Failure to provide safeguards against torture 174. The Complainants aver that the Respondent State has not provided any information to contest or explain its failure to put in place safeguards which could have prevented the torture of the Victim such as access to medical assistance, access to counsel, preventing his family from knowing where he was or from visiting him, failing to properly register his detention, exposing him to incommunicado detention and failing to bring him promptly before an effective judicial authority. Failure to investigate allegations of torture 175. The Complainants submit that the Government has provided no indication that it undertook any investigation into the torture and related abuses which the Victim has suffered throughout his detention. 176. The Complainants further submit that the Government has not addressed the flaws in its legal system which prevent accountability for torture. 177. The Complainants reject the Respondent State’s argument that it failed to investigate the Victim’s complaint due to lack of information and his failure to resubmit his claims after his release in March 2011. The Complainants aver that both the Victim and his family have made a number of complaints during his detention, any one of which should have triggered the Government to investigate his allegations. The Complainants further submit that the wealth of information which the Victim has been able to compile after his release discredits any claim that the Government could not carry out an investigation after the January 2011 revolution. 178. The Complainants submit that the Government having ample notice of the claims of torture was obliged to investigate, independently of the complaints of the Victim. 26