174. The Court observes that although this allegation was made by the Second Applicant, it also affects the First Applicant. Accordingly, it will examine the present issue in respect of both Applicants. 175. The Court notes that it has held in Leon Mugesera v. Republic of Rwanda that Article 5 of the Charter “can be interpreted as extending to the broadest possible protection against abuse, whether physical or mental”.86 This Court also held that the cruelty or inhumanity of the treatment must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and must involve a certain degree of physical or mental suffering on the part of the prisoner, taking into account the duration of the treatment, the physical or psychological effects of the treatment and state of health of the person.87 The Court has also held that States have an obligation to provide prisoners with “necessary conditions of a dignified life, including food, water, adequate ventilation, an environment free from disease, and the provision of adequate healthcare.”88 176. The Court observes that the Applicants buttresses their allegations with published reports, while the Respondent State does not provide any information in rebuttal. In the absence of contrary information debunking these allegations, the Court considers that these allegations are wellfounded. 177. Given the above, the Court holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicants’ right to dignity guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter by subjecting the Applicants to anguish and living in deplorable conditions of detention. 86 Leon Mugesera v. Republic of Rwanda (judgment) (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 834, § 80. Ibid, § 81. 88 Ibid, § 103. 87 50