162.In line with the same reasoning, the Commission is of the view that the prolonged incommunicado detention of the Victim and denial of contact with his family while in detention, constitutes inhumane and degrading treatment. 163.Regarding the Complainants argument that more than 14 years after the Victim's release and despite the media reports on his alleged torture and arbitrary detention67, the Respondent State did not take measures to investigate the acts of torture, the Commission refers to the Robben Island Guidelines which provides that states parties are under an obligation to establish fully independent mechanisms to which allegations of torture are brought; ensure that where claims of torture or ill-treatment are brought before the competent authorities, an investigation shall be initiated; investigations shall be conducted promptly, impartially and effectively rmd reparations are offered to victims irrespective of whether a successful criminal prosec:ution can or has been brought 68 . These provisions are also reinfo~ced in the Commission's Luanda Guidelines, which provides that . states shall ensure prompt investigations into allegations of torture 69 • Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights i:n Alpar v Turkey 70 also held that States are obligated to conduct an effective investigation into the claims of the victim on torture, and having not done so, they violated Article 3 prohibiting torture. II II 164.The Commission therefore finds that the failure of the Respondent State to carry out investigations on the acts of torture meted on the Victim, constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the African Charter. 165. For the above reasons therefore, the Commission finds that the Respondent State viola.t ed Article 5 of the African Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 6 166.Article 6 of the African Charter provides that: