protesters were taken into unexplained and indefinite detention, where they were kept incommunicado, deprived of access to their families or a lawyer, were roughly treated and deprived of medical attention. 105. The Complainants argue that while in the park the Victims were not free to move away without the consent of the armed police officers, and were therefore under the control of the Respondent State’s agents, both while surrounded by police officers in the park and afterwards while in detention. Thus, the Complainants submit that the burden is on the Respondent State to show that the physical harm and mental anguish suffered by the Victims were not the responsibility of the agents of the State, and aver that the State has failed to do so. 106. The Complainants submit that (a) the delay in releasing the bodies of the Victims, including the wife and son of the First Victim; (b) being denied access to the bodies of his loved ones, which caused the First Victim acute psychological suffering; and (c) being unable to provide them with appropriate burial in accordance with his culture and traditions, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and lack of respect for the dignity of the First Victim and a violation of Article 5. Alleged violation of Article 6 107. As regards the right to personal liberty and security of the person guaranteed under Article 6 of the African Charter, the Complainants aver that the random arrest and arbitrary detention of Victims in police training camps and prisons in and around Cairo, with no specific reasons given for the detention, being unable to contact their families and being denied information about their whereabouts and not having access to lawyers or a court to determine the lawfulness of their detention, amounted to a violation of Article 6. Alleged violation of Article 11 108. Article 11 of the African Charter protects the right to assemble freely with others, subject to necessary restrictions provided for by law for a legitimate purpose. The Complainants submit that the protestors were exercising this right by way of peaceful sit-in in the square, and that the onus is on the Respondent State to prove that interference with this assembly was justified. 26