Every individual shall have the right to respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment shall be prohibited. 97. The Commission observes that the present Communication does not raise any issues related to slavery and slave trade and will therefore confine its analysis of Article 5 to the of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 98. The Commission recalls its decision in Sudan Human Rights Organization and Center for Housing Rights and Evictions v Sudan , 24 in which it set out the principal elements that constitute torture under the Charter, namely, that severe pain or suffering has to have been inflicted; for a specific purpose, such as to obtain information, as punishment or to intimidate, or for any reason based on discrimination; by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of state authorities. The Commission has also in its interpretation of Article 5 of the Charter, adopted the definition of torture contained in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 25 99. The Commission notes the description of the treatment described above to which the Complainants were subjected while in NISS detention. The Commission also notes that these acts, characterized amongst other things by severe beatings, credible threats and sleep deprivation, resulted in severe physical and mental pain and suffering on the three complainants. The Commission also observes that these acts were intentionally inflicted by public officials (NISS officials) for the purpose of punishing the Complainants and obtaining information about laptops and bags purportedly containing evidence of their collusion with the ICC. 100. The Commission observes that the Complainants have adduced evidence in the form of a medical certificate 26 and sworn testimonies 27 to prove these facts. These facts have also not been contested by the Respondent State. The Commission recalls that States are under an obligation not only to make sure that torture is absolutely prohibited in their legislation, but also in practical terms. Where torture is allegedly inflicted and this is brought to the attention of the State, it is also under an obligation to initiate a prompt, impartial and effective investigation in order to determine the veracity of the allegations and to bring the perpetrators to justice if the allegations are founded, as well as to afford redress to the victims. 28 101. The Commission observes that it has already been established that the allegations of torture in the present Communication were duly brought to the attention of the authorities of the Respondent State. However, there is no indication that the Respondent State took any measures to investigate the allegations and bring the perpetrators to justice. In the circumstances, the Commission considers that the Complainants rights under Article 5 of the Charter were violated. Alleged violation of Article 6 102. The Complainants contend that their deprivation of liberty is contrary to Article 6 of the Charter. Article 6 of the Charter provides that every individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of the person. No one may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained. 103. The Commission observes that not all actions that constrain an individual's physical freedom can amount to a deprivation of liberty in terms of Article 6 of the Charter. However, a deprivation of liberty that falls outside the strict confines of the law, or for reasons that are not acceptable or simply arbitrary, will amount to a violation of Article 6 of the Charter. 104. The Complainants have explained that they were invited for a meeting by the NISS and subsequently detained. They were not formally arrested with a warrant nor were any charges brought against them in the course of their detention. It has not been shown that their arrest was based on any reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offense. During their detention, they were not informed of their right to access a 13