belongings with them, and they were thus forced to leave them behind. The Commission finds that the Respondent State failed to allow the Victims the opportunity to deal with their belongings before being removed.66 Given that the vast majority of people were released on the day following their arrest, one would presume that they would then have been given the opportunity to return to the park to salvage their possessions. This would be in line with the Commission’s finding in Media Rights Agenda and Others v Nigeria, in which it was held that “the right to property necessarily includes a right to have access to property of one’s own and the right not for one’s property to be removed”.67 237. In reality, they were prohibited from returning to the park and their possessions, apart from the valuables, were burnt. While the State submits that the valuables had been placed in the Court safe and given to the Sudanese Embassy to be returned to their owners, they do not make mention of ever informing the Victims that their valuables were with the Court and Embassy, nor do the Complainants make any mention of being aware that the valuables were kept at the Court and Embassy. There is thus no indication that the valuables were ever returned to their owners, and thus the Commission finds that the protestors were permanently deprived of these valuables. 238. The provision on property makes allowances for a limitation on this right, were it is necessitated either by public need or community interest. The State submits that the reason why the remaining property had to be burnt was that it was not valid for human consumption, posed a danger to public health and environment, and was a potential source of infectious diseases and epidemics. The Commission finds that this is a valid justification for the burning of the property. 239. Since in relation to the valuables there is no indication that they were ever returned to their owners, as well as the permanent destruction of the remaining property through burning, the Commission has in the past held that there was a duty on the State to provide the Victims with adequate compensation determined by an impartial tribunal of competent jurisdiction. 68 Given that This is in line with the finding of the Commission in Communication 292/04: Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Angola, para 73. 67 Para 77. 68 As above; ACHPR Principles And Guidelines On The Implementation Of Economic, Social And Cultural Rights In The African Charter On Human And Peoples’ Rights, para 55(e). 66 67