54. There is substantial evidence produced by the Complainants to the effect that torture is practised. All of the alleged acts of physical abuses, if they occurred, constitute violations of Article 5. Additionally, holding an individual without permitting him or her to have any contact with his or her family, and refusing to inform the family whether the individual is being held and his whereabouts is inhuman treatment of both the detainee and the family concerned. 55. The Sudanese Penal Code prohibits torture and perpetrators are punishable with up to 3 months imprisonment or a fine. 56. The government does not deal with these allegations in its report. The Commission appreciates the fact that the government’s has brought some officials to trial for torture, but the scale of the government's measures is not commensurate with the magnitude of the abuses. Punishment of torturers is important, but so also are preventive measures such as halting of incommunicado detention, effective remedies under a transparent, independent and efficient legal system, and ongoing investigations into allegations of torture. 57. Since the acts of torture alleged have not been refuted or explained by the government, the Commission finds that such acts illustrate, jointly and severally, government responsibility for violations of the provisions of Article 5 of the African Charter. 58. Article 6 of the Charter reads: “Every individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of his 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”. 59. In its written submission to the Commission on 1st January 1991, in reply to the allegations of arbitrary arrests made by the Complainants, the government described the powers given to the President of the Revolutionary Command Council to issue orders and take measures in a state of emergency. Simply because an arrest is carried out under a written provision in force does not amount to a violation of Article 6. This article must be interpreted in such a way as to permit arrests only in the exercise of powers normally granted to the security forces in a democratic society. In these cases, the wording of this decree allows for individuals to be arrested for vague reasons, and upon suspicion, not proven acts, which conditions are not in conformity with the spirit of the African Charter. 60. Furthermore, appeal in the case of arrest lies to the body whose president orders the arrests. Such a remedy provides no guarantee of good administration of justice and is more akin to an appeal for clemency than a judicial appeal. Additionally, numerous arrests have been effected in disregard of this decree. The Commission is constrained to find that in Sudan there have been serious and continuing violations of Article 6 during the period under consideration. 61. Article 7.1 of the Charter reads: Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: 1. the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognised and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; 2. the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court of tribunal; 3. the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; 4. the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal”. 62. All of these provisions are mutually dependent, and where the right to be heard is infringed, other violations may occur, such as detentions being rendered arbitrary. Especially sensitive is the definition of "competent," which encompasses facets such as the expertise of the judges and the inherent justice of the laws under which they operate. 63. At the level of procedure, the complaints allege extensive interference with due process, including the institution of numerous special courts and trial of individuals who were denied the assistance of counsel. Some individuals were denied the right to challenge the legal grounds for their detention. 64. The government's submission is only in respect of Decree No. 2, which establishes the right of individuals to appeal to the Revolutionary Command Council. However, the government does not present evidence that this right was afforded to the persons in these cases. It is also unclear if accused persons have in all cases been permitted to select their own advocates without interference,