222. Regarding the issue raised by the Respondent State as regards the sufficiency of evidence to prove the allegations of torture and ill-treatment, and as already set out in the Commission’s analysis leading to its conclusion as set out in its analysis in paragraphs 215 and 216 above, the Commission observes that the Victim did not only provide corroborative reports but also primary medical evidences – the details of which are contained in this decision, and as well that the Respondent State has not provided satisfactory explanation of how the Victim’s injuries were sustained, nor presented contrary evidence to rebut the submissions of the Complainants. The Respondent State simply argues that the allegations of torture are unfounded. Consequently, based on the facts and evidence presented before it and in light of its aforestated jurisprudence, the Commission, following its analysis as set out in paragraphs 215 and 216, is satisfied that the Complainants have provided sufficient evidence to support the allegations of torture and ill-treatment of the Victim during his detention. ii. Whether there was failure to provide safeguards against torture 223. The Complainants allege a violation of Articles 5 and 1 of the Charter due to the Respondent State’s failure to provide safeguards against torture including by denying the Victim access to medical assistance and a lawyer, preventing his family from knowing his whereabouts or from visiting him, failing to properly register his detention, and failing to bring him promptly before an effective judicial authority. 224. The Commission agrees that the above are basic procedural safeguards necessary for the prevention of torture, and are recognized as such by the Robben Island Guidelines.48 The Commission however finds it more appropriate to defer its analysis on these allegations to its broader discussion under Articles 6, 7, 16 and 18 of the African Charter. iii. Whether there was failure to conduct prompt, impartial and effective investigation of torture 225. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State failed to conduct prompt, impartial and effective investigation into the allegations of torture. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State had ample notice of the allegations of torture following the numerous complaints by the Victim and his sister to the Public Prosecutor alleging torture, lack of medical care to treat the injuries, and the poor conditions of detention. The Complainants state that instead of taking investigative steps, the authorities retaliated by torturing the Victim further and isolating him. The Complainants add that following his release in March 2011, the Victim asked the Public Prosecutor about his complaints, but was told that the files no longer existed. 48 Robben Island Guidelines (n 17 above), paras 20, 24, 27, 30, and 31. In its jurisprudence, the Commission has also held that State Parties are under an obligation to put in place certain procedural safeguards in order to prevent detainees from being subjected to abuse. See, Abdel Hadi and Others v. Sudan (n 32 above), para 75. 34