60. Concerning Article 2 of the African Charter, the Commission notes that the Complainants allege that their right to non-discrimination has been violated without however explaining how, in this particular circumstance, the said closed–door session violates the rights referred to. The Commission must therefore reject this submission as being a violation of this provision of the Charter. 61. With regard to Article 5 of the Charter, the Commission takes inspiration from Banda where ordeals such as « whipping and beatings with sticks » were viewed rather as inhuman and degrading treatment and not acts of torture.6 By contrast, the fact that the Complainants were said to have been « whipped » is an inhuman and degrading treatment. The same situation applies to depriving them from having contact with their families which is also inhuman treatment. 62. In the case of torture also alleged by the Complainants, the Commission refers to its jurisprudence in the case Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Another v. Sudan to recall that the facts alluded to must be imputed to an authority or a State official, and that the purpose is to punish the victim, and the punishment suffered must be physical, moral or psychological.7 63. In this case, it is undisputed that the reported treatments meted out by the State security officials was a means of punishing the Complainants for their presumed responsibility in the assassination of the President of the Republic. It is also undeniable that some of the Complainants were sentenced to death and remained in the corridors of death for more than two years. Such a situation, to say the least, is likely to bring about agony and a psychological pain which, in the opinion of the Commission, is torture. Hence, the Commission concludes that Article 5 of the African Charter has been violated. 64. The Complainants, among others, invoke the provisions of Article 9(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to support the assertion that the lack of information as to the reasons for their arrest is a violation of their rights. Furthermore, they allege that their detention was arbitrary because it was prolonged in spite of an Amnesty Law which should have gone in their favor. 65. These allegations obviously point to the right not to be detained illegally and arbitrarily, which is protected by Article 6 of the African Charter. By Banda v. The State (2002) RADH 118 (HCZa 1999) paras 1, 10-12. Communication 279/03 (2009) AHRLR 153 (ACHPR 2009) paras 155-157. Also Ben Salem v. Tunisia Communication 269/2005 (2007) AHRLR 54 (CAT 2007) paras 16.4, 16.5. 6 7 12