the reasons are clear why the African Commission takes an uncompromising stand against torture: torture not only degrades and corrupts the society that allows it, it is also highly unreliable. But more importantly where should the line be drawn? If hanging in an upside down position or sodomizing an inmate do not work, should we as a society progress to removing toe nails with pliers or branding with red-hot irons and beating to a pulp? It is not a mistake that along with genocide, torture is the only crime that every state must punish, no matter who commits it or where. 143. But what is this creature called torture? While taking due note of the many international law instruments that absolutely prohibits torture, let's look at provisions from the perspectives of the African Charter and the African Commission. In Communication 279/03-296/05: Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v Sudan, the African Commission stated that while the African Charter does not define the meaning of the words, or the phrase "torture or degrading treatment or punishment, Article 5 is aimed at the protection of both the dignity of the human person, and the physical and mental integrity of the individual..." It cites Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture which defines, the term 'torture' to mean "....any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." 144. The African Commission further went to state in Communication 279/03-296/05 that torture constitutes the intentional and systematic infliction of physical or psychological pain and suffering in order to punish, intimidate or gather information. It says that it is a tool for discriminatory treatment of persons or groups of person who are subjected to torture by state or non-state actors at the time of exercising control over such person or persons, with the intention of controlling such populations by destroying individuals, their leaders and frightening entire communities. 145. The Commission has undertaken extensive work on freedom from torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment in recognition of the need to take concrete measures to further the implementation of the existing provisions of the Charter. At its 32nd Ordinary Session in October 2002, the Commission adopted a Resolution on the subject and also adopted the "Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa" (Robben Island Guidelines). 146. The Resolution establishes a Committee entrusted with the task of disseminating the Guidelines, developing strategies to promote and implement the Guidelines and to submit a progress report at each Ordinary Session of the Commission. States Parties are encouraged to disseminate, and implement them and to bear the Guidelines in mind in the preparation of their Initial and Period Reports. The Guidelines deal with three broad issues namely: prohibition of torture, prevention of torture and responding to the needs of victims. 147. With regard to the prohibition of torture the Robben Island Guidelines recommend the ratification of all the regional and international instruments prohibiting torture - particularly the UN Convention Against Torture, with a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Committee Against Torture, international, cooperation to combat impunity and ensure the punishment of offenders. 148. In Communication 279/03-296/05, the Complainants had submitted that the various incidences of armed attacks by the military forces of the State of Sudan, using military helicopters and the Janjaweed militia, on the civilian population, forced eviction of the population from their homes and villages, destruction of their properties, houses, water wells, food crops and livestock, and social infrastructure, the rape of women and girls and displacement internally and outside national borders of the State of Sudan, constitute violation of the various cited articles of the African Charter, including Article 5. The Complainants had argued that the totality of the violations amounted to both psychological and physical torture, degrading and inhuman treatment, involving intimidation, coercion and violence. The African Commission agreed. 149. In the instant case the Complainant state that he was subjected to prolonged electric shocks in the mouth, genitals, fingers, toes and other parts of the body. He states that medical affidavits from among others, a government doctor tend to support the Victim's testimony on this score. The Complainant also submitted that a chemical substance was applied onto Victim's body, in contravention of Article 5. He states that the Victim was forced to drink his own blood and urine apart from being urinated upon by his tormentors while they chanted 'this is humiliation, this is humiliation.' He further stated the Respondent State did not deny or argue this point, as the Respondent State's representatives conceded that they could 18