which it is notified, the Commission shall consider the facts as probable.114 In the absence of any submissions by the Respondent State on these allegations, the Commission is inclined to accept the Complainants allegations as fact. 310. The Commission finds the Respondent State in violation of Article 8 of the African Charter by unlawfully restricting the Victim’s right to freely practice his religion. Alleged violation of Article 16 311. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State violated Article 16 of the Charter. 312. Article 16 of the Charter states that: 1. Every individual shall have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health. 2. State Parties […] shall take the necessary measures to protect the health of their people and to ensure that they receive medical attention when they are sick. 313. The Complainants submit that although the Victim was abused at the hands of prison and security officials, the Victim was not provided with medical care and his requests for medical attention were denied. The Respondent State disputes these allegations and refers to a visit to the hospital in February 2010, and medical reports dated 27 January 2011 and 21 February 2011. 314. Guideline 4 (g) of the Luanda Guidelines state that an arrested person has the right to urgent medical assistance, to request and receive a medical examination and to obtain access to existing medical facilities. 315. The Commission notes that the responsibility of the government in relation to Article 16 of the Charter is heightened in cases where the individual is in the State’s custody and where a person’s physical integrity and well-being is completely dependent on the activities of the authorities.115 In Monim Elgak and others v. Sudan, the Commission specified that in the event of detention, the State’s responsibility is even more evident to the extent that detention centres are its exclusive preserve.116 316. In the present Communication, the Commission has found that the Victim was subjected to acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment while in detention. As a result, the Victim’s health and physical condition deteriorated. The Complainants have adduced evidence in the form of the Victim’s extensive affidavit, excerpts from complaints submitted to the Public Prosecutor regarding the Victim’s treatment and health condition, and forensic medical examination reports from different medical institutions. The Commission observes that the Respondent only refers to hospital visits by the Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan (n 90 above), para 75. Media Rights Agenda and Others v Nigeria (n 2 above), para 91. 116 Monim Elgak and others v. Sudan (n 45 above), para 136. 114 115 51