provision permitting states to derogate from their responsibilities in times of emergency, especially for what is generally referred to as non-derogable rights. 43. The Commission is faced with the difficulty of deciding upon multifaceted allegations, some involving legal provisions that have changed over time. Since the communications were submitted, the situation in Sudan has not been static. And, as the government states, it has evolved in a direction that is more protective of human rights. 44. Confirming its willingness to cooperate with the Commission, the government replied in writing to th th th the communications on 1st January 1991, 10 July 1997, 14 September 1997 and 25 April 1999, th and received a mission of the Commission from 1st-7 December 1996. 45. The Commission would like to commend and encourage the Sudanese government for its efforts to improve the domestic human rights situation, with the adoption of a new constitution and the repeal of the emergency laws, which seriously jeopardised the rights guaranteed in the Charter. It however maintains that these new changes have no effect on the past violations, which it is required, by virtue of its mandate to protect and promote human rights, to rule upon. 46. The Commission indeed undertook a mission to Sudan; but this mission must be considered as part of its human-rights promotion activities and does not constitute a part of the procedure of the communications, even if it did enable the Commission to obtain information on the human rights situation in that country. Consequently, this decision is essentially based on the allegations presented in the communications and analysed by the African Commission. 47. Article 4 of the Charter reads: Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life … No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right. 48. It is alleged that prisoners were executed after summary and arbitrary trials and that unarmed civilians were also victims of extra-judicial executions. These allegations are upheld by evidence taken from the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur. 49. The government provides copies of the laws governing the executions alleged in the communications, but provides no specific information on the said executions. The Commission’s delegation was unable to obtain this information either. 50. In addition to the individuals named in the communications, there are thousands of other executions in Sudan. Even if these are not all the work of forces of the government, the government has a responsibility to protect all people residing under its jurisdiction (See ACHPR/74/91: 93, Union des Jeunes Avocats vs/Chad ). Even if Sudan is going through a civil war, civilians in areas of strife are especially vulnerable and the State must take all possible measures to ensure that they are treated in accordance with international humanitarian law. 51. The investigations undertaken by the Government are a positive step, but their scope and depth fall short of what is required to prevent and punish extra-judicial executions. Investigations must be carried out by entirely independent individuals, provided with the necessary resources, and their findings should be made public and prosecutions initiated in accordance with the information uncovered. Constituting a commission of the District Prosecutor and police and security officials, as was the case in the 1987 Commission of Enquiry set up by the Governor of South Darfur, overlooks the possibility that police and security forces may be implicated in the very massacres they are charged to investigate. This commission of enquiry, in the Commission’s view, by its very composition, does not provide the required guarantees of impartiality and independence. 52. According to the Commission's long-standing practice, in cases of human rights violations, the burden of proof rests on the government (See, ACHPR/59/91, ACHPR/60/91, ACHPR/64/92, 68/92, 78/92, ACHPR/87/93, ACHPR/101/93). If the government provides no evidence to contradict an allegation of human rights violation made against it, the Commission will take it as proven, or at the least probable or plausible. On the information available, the Commission considers that there was a violation of Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. 53. Article 5 of the Charter reads: “Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being...All forms of...degradation of man particularly...torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment shall be prohibited”.