p.CHP/i ~f) 6.~!jsEf1 Human and Peoples' Rights Human Collective A;ght5 our Responsibility 179. In finding answers to these questions, paragraphs 3 to 11 of this Communication under 'Summary of the Complaint' read together with the Complainant's submission on the merits, paragraph 9 to 15 is crucial to the sexual nature of the violations purported to have been committed against the Victims. 180. The Complainants referred to the events which took place on 10 March 2011,where the Victims (along with 15 other female detainees and 157 male detainees) were transported to a military prison, questioned on their marital status and, following identification of the seven unmarried female detainees in the group, subjected to beating, electroshocks, and forced genital examinations by a male military doctor. The Complainants submitted that the Victims were coerced and subjected to verbal intimidation and abuses by State agents. They were forced to undress completely in the presence of the male military doctor, a female prison guard, and other male officers and soldiers.t= 181. They submitted further that the military doctor then conducted forced genital examinations using his hand, an examination, which lasted for approximately five minutes without their consent to such procedure. The First Victim testified that the humiliation and physical, psychological and mental damage she experienced was to such an extent that.156 182. Several conclusions are obvious from the submissions of the statements made by the Victims, namely, (i) they were exclusively women; (ii) the demonstrations were political activity in which the victims participated, (iii) they were not protected from the perpetrators and other unidentified actors during the demonstrations, after demonstrations in custody and during the purported Virginity test, the justifications of which the Commission interrogating what appeared to be its justification from the facts, we are of the firmview that it constituted a case for "two wrongs which never make it right"; and (iv) the violations were perpetrated on the Victims because of their gender. 183. Having said this, the burden of proof could, therefore, shift on the Respondent State, to prove that the Victims were indeed protected by the law and that there was no differential treatment given to both male and female protesters on the scene, and justify whichever took place based on the established tests. However, for what is considered in the record and all attempts, the Respondent state never submitted on merit, and there 155 See, Paragraph 60 also Annex 18 156 First Applicant testimony to military prosecution on 28 [une 2011 (translated), p8 421 P age •.. ·-"..'!flllll African ( , Union J