138. In the case of Tyrer v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights addressed the incompatibility of corporal punishment with the right to humane treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The European Court held that: “[t]he very nature of judicial corporal punishment is that it involves one human being inflicting physical violence on another human being. Furthermore, it is institutionalised violence, that is in the present case violence permitted by the law, ordered by the judicial authorities of the State and carried out by the police authorities of the State […] Thus, although the applicant did not suffer any severe or long-lasting physical effects, his punishment - whereby he was treated as an object in the power of the authorities - constituted an assault on precisely that which it is one of the main purposes of Article 3 to protect, namely a person’s dignity and physical integrity.”40 139. The Court also observes that in Doebbler v Sudan, a communication involving a complaint that the sentencing of eight students in Sudan to between twenty-five (25) and forty (40) lashes violated Article 5 of the Charter, the Commission held that “there is no right for individuals, and particularly the government of a country to apply physical violence to individuals for offences. Such a right would be tantamount to sanctioning State sponsored torture under the Charter and contrary to the very nature of this human rights treaty.”41 140. Recalling its jurisprudence, the Court reiterates that three main factors are relevant in determining whether the right to dignity, as guaranteed under Article 5 has been violated.42 First is to note that Article 5 has no limitation provisions. This entails that the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is absolute. Second, the prohibition in Article 5 must be extended to provide the widest possible protection against abuse be it physical or mental. Lastly, personal suffering and indignity can take 40 ECtHR, Tyrer v. United Kingdom, (5856/72), Judgment of April 25, 1978, Series A No. 26, § 33. Communication No. 236/2000 § 42. 42 Lucien Ikili Rashidi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 13, § 88. 41 33