their testimonies before the PPO, and what they alleged in their application before the African Commission, which hampered the investigation of the violations. 49 161. The Complainants argue that the omissions made by the Victims which the State describes as „discrepancies‟ are due to the conditions under which the statements before the PPO were taken, and that not all the AC HP R information that they provided was considered or written down. They further contend that the instances50 detailed in the Respondent State‟s submission does not discharge it from its obligation to investigate human rights violations because the omission is not material enough to constitute a bar, by the Victims, to an effective investigation. 162. Even though the Respondent State maintains that failure to supply the PPO with the information required, coupled with the inconsistencies in the account given by the Victims on the incidents that took place during the demonstrations hampered the investigations, they seem to agree with the Complainants that the Victims made omissions due to the circumstances in which they found themselves. This is seen in the Respondent State‟s submissions that, “The circumstances surrounding the incident characterized by a large crowd and the psychological and physical conditions of the female journalists, did not permit them to precisely recollect the sequence of events, which in turn did not help the investigation authority to identify the perpetrators.” 163. Based on the above, it is the African Commission‟s opinion that the Respondent State failed to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators who 49 See paragraph 96 above outlining the discrepancies. 50 The Complainants clarify these discrepancies in paragraph 104 above. 46