The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES made regarding the harassment and threats, which is the reason the complainant fled from Zimbabwe. The Commission cited the lack of medical evidence, the insufficient detail provided regarding those the complainant alleged to be responsible for the threats and harassment as well as lack of evidence that these persons were in fact agents of Zimbabwe’s Central Intelligence Office.450 The Commission took the same position in the Obert Chinhamo v. Zimbabwe case, citing the dearth of evidence linking the alleged violations to State agents. Both these cases were declared inadmissible. In the Gabriel Shumba case, however, which was admitted and in which the Commission found in favour of the complainant, the Commission noted the ‘more than adequate evidence’ submitted to support the victim’s allegations of torture and ill-treatment, which included a number of medical and psychological reports.451 The Commission has also established that if a person develops injuries while in detention, the burden of proof shifts to the State to convince the Commission that the allegation is unfounded. In the case of Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and INTERIGHTS v. Egypt, the Commission concluded that as the State had failed to give a satisfactory explanation as to how the victims sustained injuries while in detention, and in light of the consistency amongst the victims’ accounts of torture, the marks on the victims as documented by the unduly delayed forensic exam were considered evidence of the use of torture which could only have been inflicted by the State.452 8. Findings on the Merits Once a communication is declared admissible, the Commission proceeds to the ‘merits’ phase, during which it examines whether the Respondent State has violated any right under the relevant instruments. If aspects of the case need to be clarified, both parties have three months to supply additional information.453 Consideration of the merits takes place in a separate session, and culminates in a finding as to whether the relevant rights have been violated. The procedure is the same for the African Court. Over the years, the procedure during these hearings before the Commission has become increasingly formal. Although not required by the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, victims are in most cases represented by lawyers, often members of NGOs who provide this service free of charge. They prepare written arguments, are allowed to present oral arguments and, more exceptionally, 450 451 452 453 106 ACHPR, Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 308/05, para. 92. ACHPR, Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 288/04, para. 159. ACHPR, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and INTERIGHTS v. Egypt, Comm. No. 334/06, para. 171. ACHPR, Rules of Procedure, supra note 43, Rule 119(2).