exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel and inhuman
or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited;"
162. In the first instance, in determining whether the alleged acts inflicted on the Victims
amounted to Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment in the scope of
Article 5, the Commission reiterates its holding in InternationaL Pen and Others vs Nigeriat"
that Article 5 of the African Charter prohibits not only torture but cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment. The Commission also remains guided by its position in Curtis
Doebbler vs Sudan,94 that the determination of whether an act constitutes inhuman,
degrading treatment or punishment depends on the circumstances of the case, and that
the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment is to be
interpreted as widely as possible to encompass the broadest possible array of physical
and mental abuses.
163. As to the obligation of states, the Commission refers'to Article 16(1) of the UN Convention
against Torture, which requires States to prevent, in any territory under their jurisdiction,
acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatrrient or punishment which amount to torture
as defined in Article I, regardless of the perpetrator's' official capacity. The Commission
also considers Article 16(2) of the 'same Co~ven.~bn. It adds that the provisions are
without prejudice to the provisions of any other iriter;mftional instrument or national law
which prohibits crue,t inhuman or degrading treatniente>r punishment and holds along
the view adopted"'inEgyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights vs. Egtjpt95 that the
spirit of the UN Convention Against Torture shall apply even in the context of the African
Charter.
.
i
164. In the same line 0c>£"reflectionas to what constitutes ill-treatment, the Commission also
takes the position if took in the Egyptian lnitidiioe for Personal Rights and Interights vs. Egtjpt,
in particular, considering the European Court position in Ireland v UK96underscoring that
an act will qualify as 'ill-treatment,' when it attains a minimum level of severity in terms
of (i) the duration of the treatment.fii) the physical effects of the treatment; (iii)the mental
effects of the treatment; and (iv) the sex, age and state of health of the victim involved;
.'
165. On the questiori;'~f what constitutes "inhuman degrading treatment," the Commission
again maintains .'its view from the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and lnterights vs
Egypt case, citing the combined
Commission
Greek Cases97 by the European
considers that the notion of inhuman degrading
Commission. The
treatment covers at least
93Communications 137/94,139/94,154/96 & 161/97
94Communication 236/2000, see also Communication 225/98 Huri-Laws v Nigeria and UN Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
95See, Paragraph 191-2
,/ " (.,(., Af?lfJ,r'u ,(,<!'.~
96(1978)ECHR (Series A) para 162
c ;
o~.~
97 Consists of Denmark vs. Greece, Norway vs. Greece, Sweden vs. Greece, Netherlands vs. Greece (196~)
~. \
Yearbook: Eur.Conv.
.'
I
on HR 12 page 186'
c. \.
!;
1
.
. ",
AU·UA
f) en I
I ) ~~!
-I
.\.
,
""J
?
'
~'o'....__."... ./ ,,0,3'6
(i
,
tv 11~kICP.\t'''' "",,
10.
":--:--~
..... ~
,,?"
',I
'{