disabilities. However, the Court observes, that the Respondent State has not submitted sufficient evidence to indicate that it has undertaken a concerted approach to detect, investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of attacks on PWA. 221. Furthermore, it failed to diligently investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of the acts of torture. Resultantly, the Court finds that the Respondent State has been complicit and by implication, ratified the actions of torture of the private actors. In the circumstances, the Respondent State has violated the right not to be subjected to torture. 222. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated Article 5 of the Charter and Article 7 of the ICCPR by failing to protect PWA from torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading acts occasioned on account of their albinism. D. Alleged violation of the right to inherent dignity 223. Citing the Commission’s communication of Purohit and Another v. The Gambia, the Applicants aver that “human dignity is an inherent basic right to which all human beings, regardless of their mental capacities or disabilities … are entitled to without discrimination.” 224. The Applicants in reference to the Canadian case of Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), submit that human dignity is related to physical and psychological integrity and empowerment. Furthermore, that human dignity is negatively impacted by unfair treatment based on personal traits and circumstances which do not relate to individual needs, capacities or merits. 225. It is the Applicants’ submission that PWA are treated less like humans and more like goods as they are hunted for their body parts and are perceived as “gateway to riches”. 52