relied on the definition of the United Nations Convention against torture to wit: “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 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 arising from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions”. The Respondent went on to state that for an act to constitute a violation of Article 5 of the African Charter, the following three elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: a. The infliction of severe pain or suffering; b. By or with the consent or acquiesce of the state authorities; c. For a specific purpose, such as giving information, punishment or intimidation. They submitted that none of the above elements have been proven by the Applicants. The Applicants argued that the physical injuries suffered by the 1st to 19th Applicants were apparent when they were brought before the Court on the 20th April, 2016. That the record of proceedings will show that the Court was informed of the injuries of which the Respondent did not deny at that time. See proceedings of 20th and 21st April, 2016. The Court notes that Article 5 of the African Charter 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 18