Sudan'" the Commission adopted the stance of the UN Committee Against Torture in Hijrizi v. Yogoslauiaw, which opines that forced evictions and destruction of housing carried out by non-state actors amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, if the State fails to protect the victims from such a violation of their human rights. It also agreed with the reasoning in similar case'? handled by the European Court of Human Rights which dealt with allegations that the applicants' property had been destroyed by Turkish security forces, that the destruction of homes and property was cruel and inhuman treatment. 171. In light of all the above and the substantiated evidence submitted by the Complainants, the Commission concludes that the various ill treatments meted on the Complainants amount to torture in terms of the African Charter and other international instruments, substantive international, jurisprudence and practice developed in recent years regarding the nature of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and the obligations of states to protect its citizens against such treatment. Consequently, a violation~f;Artic~~~:5 of-the African Charter is established. ., .. i ',"' Alleged violation of Article 14 - right to property; Article 16(1) ....~ight to health; Article 18(1) and 18(3) - Right to family and protection from discrimination against women, of the African Charter. 172. The Commission is mindful that in Social and Economic Rights Action Center & the Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria (SERAC & CESR v Nigeriar", it held that, although the right to><{lopSingor shel,t~r.,is not explicitly provided for under the African Charter, housing rights are protected through the combination of provisions protecting the right to 'property (art 14), the right to enjoy the best attainable standard of mental and physical health (art 16), and the protection accorded to the family (art 18(1)). The Commission thus illustrated the interrelationships of the right to health, and the right to family. 173. The Commission. bearing in mind the above-mentioned interrelationships, will therefore examine the authenticity of the allegations of violation of Articles 14, Article 16(~), Article 18(1) and 18(3), simultaneously. 174. Article 14 provides that-liThe right to property shall be guaranteed. It may onLy be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance ioith. the provisions of appropriate laws." 175. The Complainants aver that the demolition of the sort that was carried out on their property without prior official notice or court order, or through any unlawful order or methods, disregards courts authority, violates laws binding on the army and their right to property. They also state that the seizure of the Passport of their