250. In light of this reasoning, the Commission is of the view that acts of illtreatment should not be classified as low level offences. The penalty under Article 129 of a maximum of 1-year imprisonment and a fine of approximately 30 USD cannot be seen as severe and sufficiently reflective of the grave nature of the crime and discouraging of acts of ill-treatment. c. Restrictions on the rights of victims 251. The Complainants state that Articles 63 and 232(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code restrict the rights of victims by giving the Public Prosecutor exclusive authority to investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment and to bring charges against public officials. The Complainants submit that the prosecution can issue a “no grounds order” and the decision cannot be appealed if the alleged perpetrator is a public official/civil servant.71 The Complainants further submit that a victim cannot file a request to court for an “investigative judge” to take charge of investigations if the accused person is a public official, leaving the victim without any avenue to challenge the Prosecutor’s refusal to investigate.72 252. The Respondent submits that both the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code stipulate that there is no statute of limitation for acts of torture, ensuring justice and compensation for victims. 253. The Commission notes the obligation of States to combat impunity by “[ensuring] that those responsible for acts of torture or ill-treatment are subject to legal process”.73 The Commission’s General Comment No. 4 on the Right to Redress for Victims of Torture and Other Ill-treatment in Africa states that failure to provide prompt access to redress, which includes justice for victims, constitutes de facto denial of redress.74 254. The Commission further endorses the view of the UN Committee against Torture that “[…] impediments which preclude prompt and fair prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of torture or ill-treatment violate the principle of non-derogability of the prohibition of torture. They would constitute an intolerable obstacle for victims seeking redress, and contribute to a climate of impunity.”75 255. The Commission notes that the Respondent State cites provisions in its Constitution, Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code but fails to specifically address the provisions which restrict investigation into allegations of torture and prosecution, where the alleged perpetrators are public officials. 256. The Commission observes that the referenced provisions are indeed restrictive of victims’ right to access redress. Criminal Procedure Code, Article 210. As above, Article 64. 73 Robben Island Guidelines, Guideline 16(a). 74 ACHPR, General Comment No. 4 on the Right to Redress for Victims of Torture in Africa (2017), para 26. 75 UN Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Senegal (2013) para 9. See also, General Comment No. 2 (n 46 above), paras 5 – 7. 71 72 40