138. Having said this, the onus probandi therefore shifts on the Respondent State to prove that the Victims were in effect protected by the law and that there was no differential treatment given to both male and female protesters on the scene. However, there is no evidence in the submissions of the Respondent State showing that male protesters in the scene were also stripped naked and sexually harassed as the women were. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary by the Respondent State, AC HP R 139. the Commission finds a violation of Article 2 of the African Charter. 140. In claiming a violation of Article 18(3 of the African Charter, the Complainants submit that the sexual abuse that the Victims endured were gender-specific, amounting to discrimination on the grounds of sex. 141. The Complainants further allege that the State failed to protect the Victims from discrimination, by not taking any measures to thoroughly investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators in cases where it occurs. . 142. In order for the African Commission to establish that Article 18(3) has been violated by the Respondent State, it is going to analyse „some of the elements‟ of the testimonies provided by the Complainants (discussed in paragraphs 131 to 136) above to establish whether the allegations were indeed gender-specific, and discriminatory on the primary basis of gender. This is because the characteristics of violence commonly committed against women and men differ, and it is only by analyzing the nature of the violence that the African Commission can effectively draw its conclusions. 40