described by Eritrea excuse its actions, as Article 5, permits no restrictions or limitations on the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The Commission thus finds that Eritrea has violated Article 5, by holding the journalists and political dissidents incommunicado without allowing them access to their families. 32 13th Activity Report 1999-2000. 33 See Jawara case. Communication 101/93; Civil Liberties Organization (in respect of Nigeria Bar Association) v Nigeria. 34 See also the ECHR decisions in Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207, and Yagci and Sargm v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 50, Series A no. 3I9-A). In this connection, the Court reiterates that the burden of proof in these matters should not be reversed by making it incumbent on the detained person to demonstrate the existence of reasons warranting his release (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 85, 26 July 2001). 35 Para 8 initial Complaint. 36 See also Communication 251/02: Lawyers of Human Rights v Swaziland, where the African Commission stated that the Respondent State should not override constitutional provisions or undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and international standards; and that the regulation of the exercise of the right to freedom of association should be consistent with State's obligations under the African Charter. This principle does not apply to freedom of association alone but also to all other rights and freedoms enshrined in the [African] Charter, including, the right to freedom of assembly. 37 Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Comm. Nos. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97 ? 196/97 and 210/98 (2000), para. 128. See also Communications 54/91 et al v Mauritania, 13th Activity Report, para. 128. 38 The Ogoni Case (2001), para. 54. 39 Communication No. 225/98 v Nigeria, 14th Annual Report, para. 52. 40 Dogan and Others v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Applications 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02 (2004), paras. 138-139. 41 See The Mayagna Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, (2001), para. 146 (hereinafter the Awas Tingni Case 2001). The terms of an international human rights treaty have an autonomous meaning, for which reason they cannot be made equivalent to the meaning given to them in domestic law. 42 Dogan and Others v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Applications 8803-881 and 8815-8819/02 (2004). paras 138-139. 43 Dogan and Others v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Applications 8803-881 and 8815-8819/02 (2004). para 138-139. 28