The Respondent avers that the Applicants were duly arraigned in court but that the High Court ordered for their remand in custody pending trial. That they were allowed access to family, Counsel and medical care. That they were allowed Counsel of their choice until Counsel withdrew his representation and the Applicants continued their defense. The Respondents aver that the Applicants were not subjected to torture or inhumane and degrading treatment but that the investigation was pursuant to the unlawful processions of 14th and 16th April 2016 and its attendant disorder. The Respondent maintains that the treatment of the Applicants did not amount to torture and ill treatment, that 18th detainee and Ebrima Solo Sandeng were never subjected to torture particularly subjected to torture. The Respondent states that the Applicants were not beaten or brutalized but that reasonable force was used to disperse the crowd. The Respondent admits paragraph 16 of the Applicants claim and affirms the sentence of three years in prison but states that the Applicants were accorded fair hearing during the trial. The Respondent states that the Applicants have filed an Appeal in the Court of Appeal against their conviction. The Respondent contends that the application of the Applicants lacks merit and is therefore not eligible for the reliefs sought. That the Court should dismiss the application for lack of merit. The Applicants’ Response to the Respondents’ Statement of Defense The Applicants’ maintained the facts averred in the initiating application. The Applicants specifically contend that they were denied Counsel, family and medical care and refer to the proceedings of THE STATE V. OUSAINOU DARBOE & ORS (2016) CRIMINAL CASE NO: HC/179/16/CR/059/AO. The Applicants aver that the Counsel representing them (in the domestic case) was compelled to withdraw representation cited many instances leading to this including the fact that there was an atmosphere of 7