Law Admissibility 17. Article 56 of the Charter governs the admissibility of communications brought pursuant to Article 55 of the Charter. The applicable provision in this particular case is Article 56(5) of the Charter, which provides inter alia : "Communications relating to Human and Peoples' Rights...received by the Commission shall be considered if they...are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged..." 18. The facts of this case reveal the following: • • The Complainant is no longer in the Republic of Kenya; • The Complainant has been forced to flee his country because of his political opinions and Student Union activities; he did not voluntarily. • An attestation dated 30 th October 1999, issued by one Mr Tane Bamba, Head of Sub Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, indicates that the complainant "is recognised as a refugee under UNCHR mandate in accordance with the provisions of the OAU Convention of 10 th September 1969, the conditions of which he satisfied." 19. Relying on its case law (see communication 215/98 - Rights International/Nigeria ), the Commission finds that the complainant is unable to pursue any domestic remedy following his flight to the Democratic Republic of Congo for fear of his life, and his subsequent recognition as a refugee by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Commission therefore declared the communication admissible based on the principle of constructive exhaustion of local remedies. Merits 20. The Complainant alleges that prior to his fleeing the country, he was arrested and detained for 10 months without trial at the notorious basement cells of the Secret Service Department headquarters in Nairobi. 21. The State Party has not contested this claim. In fact, it has not responded to the many requests made by the Secretariat of the Commission. In this circumstance and following its well laid down precedent on this, the Commission accepts the facts of the complainant as the facts of the case and finds the Respondent State in violation of Article 6 of the Charter. Article 6 provides: Every individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his liberty except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained. 22. The Complainant claims that the detention facility had a 250 watts electric bulb, which was left on throughout his ten months detention. Furthermore, that throughout his period of detention, he was denied bathroom facilities and was subjected to both physical and mental torture. 23. The Commission finds the above condition, to which the complainant was subjected, in contravention of the Respondent State Party's obligation to guarantee to the complainant the right to the respect of his dignity and freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 5 of the Charter, which provides: Every individual shall have the right to the 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, and torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited. 24. Such condition and treatment also runs contrary to the minimum standards contained in the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment , particularly, Principles 1 and 6. 2