Mr. Elgak's lower lip was split open as a result of the beatings while Mr. Osman had severe pain and difficulties in walking. 76. It is also submitted that all three Complainants were subjected to credible threats and a pervasive climate of fear that caused anxiety in them. Monim Elgak was for example threatened with rape and putting out a cigarette in his eye; Osman Hummeida was threatened with execution, having a gun pointed at his head, as well as being exposed to torture instruments. He was also subjected to death threats and made to witness the torture of his colleague and friend. Amir Suliman was threatened with torture, his glasses were removed, the room darkened and the interrogating officers brandished sticks and hoses known to be used for purposes of torture. The Complainants submit that the pervasive nature of the threats was both real and serious and the circumstances in which they found themselves were so serious that they caused them severe mental pain and suffering. 77. The Complainants contend that the acts described above were committed intentionally by individuals acting on the instructions of a named NISS leader and the acts were aimed at extracting information/confessions about the whereabouts of laptops and bags purportedly containing information about the alleged crime of spying or colluding with the ICC. 78. The Complainants submit that these acts contravene Article 5 of the Charter as well as other principles recognized by the Commission. Alleged violation of Article 6 79. The Complainants submit that they were neither formally arrested nor were any specific charges brought against them. It is pointed out that they had simply been invited by the NISS to attend a meeting and were not asked whether they wanted to attend the meeting. According to the Complainant, it was clear that their attendance was expected and not voluntary; taking into consideration the nature of the questions posed in the formal interrogation that followed. 80. It is submitted that it is not clear whether some of the Complainants were interrogated as suspects or witnesses. The Complainants submit that the facts that the questioning related to activities that could have resulted in charges being brought and that they were remanded involuntarily indicate that their status was more akin to that of suspects under arrest than witnesses subjected to questioning. These circumstances according to the Complainants demonstrate the arbitrary nature of the deprivation of liberty. The complainants also state that the arrests and detention were arbitrary because they were not based on a reasonable suspicion. 81. In addition, it is submitted that custodial safeguards were violated in respect of Mr. Osman Hummeida given that he was not informed of his right to communicate with his Embassy nor was he allowed to do so on request. This, according to the Complainants, violated his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 6 of the Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 7 82. It is submitted that Mr. Osman Hummeida was in detention for three and a half days without being brought before a judicial authority. It is submitted further that the relevant domestic law, namely Article 30 and 31 of the National Security Forces Act of 1999, permits detention for a period of four months and three days or six months (depending on the nature of the suspected offense) without any judicial review of the legality of the detention. The Complainants claim that Mr. Osman's detention and the aforementioned legislation is incompatible with Sudan's obligation under the Charter. 83. The Complainants also point out that they were not informed about the reasons for their arrest; on the contrary, they were taken into custody on 24 November 2008 under the pretext of attending a meeting. 10