Decision of the Commission on Admissibility 50. In view of the above, the Commission declares this Communication Admissible in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter; Merits Complainant's Submissions on the Merits 51. The complainants allege that the victims were arbitrarily arrested and detained by the Respondent State and prevented from communicating with their lawyers and family members and from having the opportunity to challenge the legality of the detention. They were also allegedly subjected to torture and ill-treatment at the hands of state agents. The authorities of the Respondent State also allegedly failed to investigate these violations and/or to provide other forms of reparation even though a complaint to this effect was lodged in September 2006. The complainants submit that this conduct violated articles 1, 5, 6, and 7 of the African Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 5 52. The Complainants submit that the sustained beatings, whippings, falaga, food deprivation, death threats and the other forms of ill-treatment to which the Victims were subjected constituted torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in violation of article 5 of the African Charter. The Complainants refer to the Commission's decisions in Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe and Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights v Egypt12 , wherein the Commission adopted the definition of torture under Article 1 × 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. of the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). They aver that the officers at the Soba Aradi police station, in Kober prison and in other localities deliberately used a range of methods to inflict severe pain or suffering. 53. The methods of torture used and inflicted on the complainants resulted in physical injuries and psychological trauma as set out in several affidavits which the complainants submitted to the Sudanese authorities. The Complainants point out that where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to ill-treatment and is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how the injuries were caused.13 54. The Complainants point out that the types of ill-treatment inflicted on the Victims was meant to punish them and extract confessions, and were based on discrimination on account of the Victim's status as IDPs and members of ethnic and religious groups, particularly, Darfurians. They cite the Commission's decision in Sudan Human Rights Organization and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions14 where the Commission defined torture and indicate that the acts perpetrated against the Victims constituted torture. 55. Regarding the incommunicado detention of the Victims, the Complainants submit that the denial of access to the outside world for up to 45 days after their transfer to the Kober Prison constituted prolonged incommunicado detention in violation of Article 5 of the Charter. This, according to the Complainants constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, taking into consideration the jurisprudence of the Commission and the principles established in the Robben Island Guidelines. 56. The Complainants submit further that the denial of access to medical treatment and to adequate toilet facilities violates Article 5 of the Charter and is contrary to various standards contained in international human rights instruments. Alleged violation of Article 6 6