C. Alleged violation of the prohibition against torture and cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment 191. The Applicants contend that the Respondent State has violated Article 5 of the Charter, Article 16 of the Children’s Charter and Article 7 of the ICCPR by failing to protect PWA from torture occasioned by discrimination on the basis of their albinism. 192. The Applicants aver that the definition of torture according to Article 1 of the Convention against Torture (hereinafter referred to as “CAT”) comprises of four elements, that is: infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering, intent, for a prohibited purpose, by a public official or with involvement or acquiescence of a public official. 193. According to the Applicants, unlike the CAT, Article 7 of the ICCPR, does not require the acquiescence of a public official. The Applicants argue that Article 7 of the ICCPR imposes a: “…duty on the State Party to afford everyone protection through legislative and other measures as may be necessary against the acts prohibited by Article 7, whether inflicted by people acting in their official capacity, outside their official capacity or in a private capacity.” 194. The Applicants also argue that the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm which means it does not allow any derogation. The Applicants aver that the Committee against torture (hereinafter referred to as “CAT Committee”) indicated that the obligation to prevent torture and other cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment or punishment are “indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.” Resultantly, the obligation to prevent torture overlaps with the obligation to prevent cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” 195. The Applicants aver that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture observed that the travaux preparatoires of Article 1 of the CAT revealed that torture should be considered an aggravated form of cruel, inhuman and degrading 46