UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and other human rights organisations. 213. The Respondent State argues that the allegations of torture are unsupported by evidence, and adds that the evidence submitted by the Complainants amounts to dispersed paper cuttings that do not show any link with the allegations of the Complainants. The Respondent State further submits that human rights reports cannot be used as evidence of torture. 214. In Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe, the Commission noted that in seeking to refute allegations of torture, it is not sufficient for the Respondent State to simply argue that the allegations are unsubstantiated when they are supported by a range of documentation.36 The Respondent State must provide evidence to the contrary.37 215. Additionally, in Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v. Egypt, the Commission held that when a person is injured in detention or while under the control of security forces, there is a strong presumption that the person was subjected to torture or ill-treatment.38 Under such circumstances, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how the injuries were caused.39 The Commission observed that the Respondent State made no attempt to give a satisfactory explanation of how the injuries were sustained, nor took any steps to investigate and address the surrounding circumstances,40 or provide contrary evidence to that of the Complainant. Accordingly, in line with its jurisprudence, the Commission concluded, based on its analysis of the facts and evidence before it, as set out in paragraph 212 above, that the marks on the victims evidenced the use of torture.41 216. To this end, the Commission observes in the instant Communication, that the Respondent State has not provided contrary evidence to rebut the medical and other primary evidence presented by the Complainant showing, inter alia, injuries and scars during detention, and as well, that the allegations of the Victim are similar to the pattern and practice of abuse revealed by the various (corroborative) reports submitted by the Complainant. Without pronouncing itself on the evidentiary weight of each of the documents presented, the Commission, following its analysis, is of the view that the combined weight of the submitted been tortured at the time of his detention (Arabic version); Annex 10 – English version of Annex 9; Annex 11 – MRI report dated 27 November 2006 indicating “combined developmental and discogenic spinal canal stenosis most evident at L-3 and L-4 disc” (English; Annex 12 – MRI reports of the cervical and the lumbosacral spine dated 4 July 2011; Annex 13 – 2 photographs of the Applicant’s visible scars, indicating torture; Annex 20 – MRI report from the Qasr Al Aini Hospital dated 24 October 2005 (English); and Annex 21 – Medical report by the Medical Centre of the Arab Contractors dated 25 July 1985, showing that the Victim was medically fit (Arabic and English). 36 Communication 288/04 - Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe (2012) ACHPR para 159. 37 As above. 38 Communication 334/06 - Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) and Interights v. Egypt (2011) ACHPR paras 168 & 169. 39 As above. 40 As above, 170. 41 As above, 171. 32