which he was earning his living. The Complainant cites the Commission's decision in Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Angola 23 in which the Commission agreed that the Respondent State's actions of arbitrary arrest, detention and subsequent deportation resulting in persons who were lawfully working in Angola losing their jobs, was a violation of Article 15 of the Charter. It is the Complainants' contention that the respondent State's action to close KCHRED's offices and bank accounts was the main reason behind Mr. Amir's loss of employment and opportunity and constitutes a breach of Article 15 of the Charter. Alleged violation of Article 16 90. The Complainants submit that the right to health includes the right to be free from torture and a positive obligation to provide access to adequate medical treatment in detention. It is the Complainants' contention that the treatment to which they were subjected, which caused physical and psychological harm, violated their right to enjoy the best attainable standard of physical and mental health. Alleged violation of Article 1 91. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State has failed in its positive obligations to recognise the rights, freedoms and duties enshrined in the Charter and to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them. It is also submitted that the state failed to in upholding its positive obligation to provide effective remedies as required by Article 1 read in conjunction with Articles 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 15 and 16 of the Charter. 92. It is further submitted that the Respondent State has failed in its positive obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by article 1 , particularly if read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Charter. The state authorities have not taken any investigative measures more than four years after the violations took place and almost four years after Mr. Monim Elgak published his open letter and complaint on 18 December 2008. Sudanese legislation does not provide sanctions and effective remedies in cases of breaches such as arbitrary arrest and detention and torture. The offence of unlawful detention carries the inadequate punishment of one year, or, in aggravated circumstances, three years imprisonment. The Commission's Decision on the Merits 93. The Commission is called upon to determine whether the actions of the Respondent State as described above constitute a violation of Articles 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 15 and 16 of the African Charter as alleged by the Complainants. 94. (sic!) 95. The Commission notes with concern that following its decision on admissibility, the Respondent State has failed to provide information on the merits of the Communication. In the light of the failure of the Respondent State to engagewith the Commission on the matter before it, due weight must be given to the allegations as submitted by the Complainants to the extent that these have been adequately substantiated. Alleged violation of Article 5 96. The Complainants allege that the conduct of the Respondent State's agents described above violates Article 5 of the Charter. Article 5 of the Charter provides as follows: 12