PART C: Protection against Torture: Procedures before the African Commission and African Human Rights Court 7. Establishing Facts (Evidentiary Requirements and Burden of Proof) Complainants before the Commission bear the initial onus of laying a factual foundation in support of their allegations. The Commission requires that allegations of torture be substantiated by the persons making them.443 It is not enough to allege that the victims were tortured without giving details as to the date, place, acts committed and any effects that the victims may or may not have suffered as a result.444 The Commission will not find a violation of Article 5 in the absence of such information.445 In support of their allegations of widespread torture, the complainants in the Sudan cases relied on personal statements, expert evidence (doctors’ testimonies) and a report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.446 A list of the names of the alleged victims was also provided. Where an author provides these particulars, the State against is obliged to respond. In the absence of such response, the Commission bases its judgment on the information provided by the author.447 That is, when the Government does not respond to contest the prima facie case made out by the applicant, the Commission accepts the version of facts offered by the complainant. In the Sudan cases, for example, the Commission concluded as follows: Since the acts of torture alleged have not been refuted or explained by the government, the Commission finds that such acts illustrate … government responsibility for violations of the provisions of article 5 of the African Charter.448 The Commission has upheld this position in subsequent cases in which the State has failed to contest prima facie evidence of the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.449 The importance of substantiating allegations of violations with adequate evidence is highlighted in the recent cases against Zimbabwe. In Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe, the Commission found that the complaint did not substantiate the allegations 443 ACHPR, Civil Liberties Organisation, Legal Defence Centre and Legal Defence and Assistance Project v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 218/98, 29th Ordinary Session (7 May 2001), para. 45. 444 ACHPR, Jean Yaovi Degli (on behalf of Corporal N. Bikagni), Union Interafricaine des Droits de l’Homme, Commission Internationale des Jurists v. Togo, Comm. Nos. 83/92, 88/93, 91/93. 445 ACHPR, Civil Liberties Organisation, Legal Defence Centre and Legal Defence and Assistance Project v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 218/98, para. 45. 446 ACHPR, Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, Comm. Nos. 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93, para 5. 447 ACHPR, Malawi Africa Association and Others v. Mauritania, Comm. Nos. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164-169/97 & 210/98, paras. 92, 103. 448 ACHPR, Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, Comm. Nos. 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93, para. 57. 449 See, e.g., ACHPR, Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 288/04, para. 132; Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and INTERIGHTS v. Egypt, Comm. No. 334/06, paras. 170-171. 105