in this offence as the injuries sustained by the Victims were as a result of battery and clashes. 94. The Respondent State alleges that the documents containing a narration of the occurrences, incidents and statements submitted to the African Commission by the Complainants are contrary to the statements made under oath before the PPO by the Victims. It submits that new statements AC HP R were made by the Victims to support their Complaint before the African Commission. It requests the latter to disregard unsubstantiated statements and not allow the assumptions of the correctness of the Complaint to lead to findings contrary to those of the PPO. 95. The Respondent State submits that the investigations of the PPO concluded that the perpetrators were unknown and that those who were accused by the Victims in their testimonies were not present at the scene of the incident at the time of its occurrence. The Respondent State’s Additional Submissions on the Merits 96. The Respondent State submits in its additional submissions that there exist “Several discrepancies between what the Victims submitted in their testimonies before the PPO, and what they allege in their application before the African Commission.” 97. The Respondent State outlines three instances of such discrepancies from the three Victims which are summarized as follows: i. The Second Victim, in her deposition to the African Commission, indicated that the wife of Mr. Mohamed El Deeb, a member of the 25