ii. On the discrepancy concerning the Third Victim who retracted her accusations against officer Selim when she realised that she had been mistaken as to his identity, the Complainants state that this retraction was done in good faith. They explain that the Third Victim‟s colleagues named one of her attackers as Officer Selim, but did not know the name of her attacker, although she could recognise him. The Complainants state that the Third Victim said “I saw the AC HP R same officer at another demonstration almost a year later and I recognised him. Another officer called out to him, and that is when I discovered that his name was not Nabil Selim;” iii. On the discrepancy concerning the Fourth Victim who according to the Respondent State, failed to mention to the PPO that she had been assaulted by Mr. El-Deeb and also failed to mention the episode in the hospital and the police, the Complainants explain that the Victim mentioned in her affidavit that she was greatly distressed at the time she was reporting to the PPO. According to the Complainants, the Fourth Victim indicated that she had difficulties recalling all the details and events at the time, and that she was only able to identify Mr. El-Deeb later. Furthermore, according to the Complainants, the Fourth Victim stated: “I feel like I was having a nervous breakdown at the time, and could not focus.”25 106. The Complainants aver that the Respondent State uses the discrepancies as a basis that hampered its investigations of the alleged violations, meanwhile, according to them, the statements made by the Victims had no discrepancies whatsoever, but rather omissions due to the particular 25 Iman Taha Kamel, the Fourth Victim, the submissions of the Complainants on the Merits, Annexure E, para. 19. 30