forced standing in one position for extended hours until the individual faints, shaving hair dry with broken sharp glass-bottle or razor, forcing to drink or lick one's own blood after causing to bleed by beating, and serving food during the day and depriving of it after dawn during the fasting month of Ramandan and prevention of prayers. 174. For these reasons, the Complainants submitted that the Respondent State was in violation of its duty to provide adequate and effective supervision over pre-trial detention and pre-trial interrogations within the meaning of the Robben Island Guidelines and Article 11 of the CAT. The Complainants submitted that this duty included the duty not only to prevent torture, but also to keep under systematic revision its rules of interrogations, methods, instructions, practices and any other arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subject to any form of arrest. Alleged violation of the right to fair trial (Article 7 of the African Charter) 175. The Complainants in their submissions have tackled the alleged violation of Article 7 of the African Charter under four heads namely: (i) Right not to be held in incommunicado detention; (ii) Right to a presumption of Innocence (Article 7(1)(b)of the African Charter); (iii) The Right to legal defense and counsel (Article 7(1)(c)of the African Charter); and (iv) Right to examine and challenge evidence and witnesses. 176. On the first head of incommunicado detention, the Complainants submitted that they were held in incommunicado and solitary confinement for the first two and half months following their arrests. In that period, they were not allowed to talk to their attorneys, doctors, priests, their family members or friends, and were for most part not allowed to communicate with anyone other than their interrogators and torturers. 177. On the second head of presumption of innocence, the Complainants submitted that the pre-trial publicity campaign by the Respondent State was more serious and intensive than that which the Commission dealt with in Hargewoin Gabre-Selassie v Ethiopia38 where the Commission found the violation of Article 7(1) (b) of the African Charter by the Respondent State. 178. According to the Complainants, the pre-trial publicity campaign was more serious and intensive and coordinated than in case the mentioned in paragraph 177and in fact most of the publicity campaign was done after (and despite) the Commission giving the Respondent State notice of its violations through an order for provisional measures request it to refrain from making any further public statements prejudicial to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. The Complainants also highlighted with emphasis the violations before the Commission's granting provisional measures and those after the granting of provisional measures. 179. On the third head of right to legal defence and counsel, according to the Com~ the Respondent State did not only fail to inform them of their righf'-to l~~a 'l'~~ representation but actively prevented them from benefitting from th .~ight to legal <"".I' " advice for about the first two months and a half of their detention. ~.~ y we\re.on~~~< -.''\ 38 Communication 301/05, u ......... ~, I,)!:) to.\).\)f' 'i"'A>- ,. (c,<s- .~~~~ Cr. ...,2 «,~'<, ./: SIOIV ... ;tI(."'\'!4 l)tOMMf E'" ~ # '5 ~ ,J .., c., ~"/'/ "" , I