66. The Applicant further submits that during the voir dire, the High Court did not take into account all relevant factors, such as the fact that the statement was recorded while he was admitted at the hospital, after having been attacked by a mob bent on killing him. As such he was not “a free agent on recording the statement”. * 67. The Respondent State avers that the Applicant was treated during his trial in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the land. it further avers that if at all his right to dignity was violated, he was supposed to have raised this before the domestic courts. Therefore, this allegation should be dismissed for lack of merit *** 68. Article 5 of the Charter, which the Applicant alleges has been violated, provides as follows: 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, torture, cruel, in human or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited. 69. The Court reiterates its jurisprudence that in determining whether the right to dignity has been violated, three main factors must be considered. First, Article 5 has no limitation clause. The prohibition of indignity manifested in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is thus absolute. Second, the prohibition must be interpreted to extend to the widest possible protection against abuse, whether physical or mental. Finally, personal suffering and indignity can take various forms, the assessment of which will depend on the circumstances of each case.24 24 Lucien Ikili Rashidi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 13, § 88. 19