circumstances of the case. They argue that the omissions have no material bearing on the present Communication. 107. They reiterate that the Respondent State failed in its obligations, in particular in its procedural obligation to investigate. This is because, according to the Complainants, when the Respondent State received the complaints, it failed to institute investigations that could have led to the AC HP R identification of the perpetrators or established criminal wrongdoing. Rather, it expected the Victims to provide them with the identities of the perpetrators. 108. The Complainants submit that when the PPO provided reasons for its failure to prosecute, they stated that the crime of „assault on honour‟ could not be prosecuted because the perpetrators, whoever they are, lacked the requisite intent for committing the crime. In this regard, the Complainants aver that the Respondent State‟s submission that it failed to investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators because of the omitted information by the Victims is incorrect. They argue that the Victims submitted sufficient information to enable an investigation to take place. The Respondent State’s Additional Submissions on the Merits 109. In its additional submissions, the Respondent State disputes the allegation that the investigation undertaken from the Complaints filed by the Victims, before the PPO as well as the decision by the Appeal Chamber upholding the decision of the PPO, lacked impartiality, objectivity or integrity. 31