through tampering and the Court should, therefore, deem such evidence inadmissible. 85. The Respondent State avers that the issue of admissibility of the Applicant’s confession statement was brought up during the proceedings at the Court of Appeal which found that the confession statement was procured legally and was thus rightly admitted into evidence by the trial court. 86. The Respondent State also contends that the Applicant was arrested by the police and that the force used to detain and interrogate him was reasonable and that no excessive force was used and nor was he tortured while procuring the confession statement. *** 87. The Court notes that Article 5 of the Charter provides: Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited. 88. The Court observes that the concept of human dignity holds a profound significance in the realm of individual rights. It serves as an essential foundation upon which the edifice of human rights is constructed. The right to dignity captures the very essence of the inherent worth and value that resides within every individual, irrespective of their circumstances, background, or choices. At its core, it embodies and upholds the principle of respect for the intrinsic humanity of each person and forms the bedrock of what it means to be truly human. It is in this sense that Article 5 absolutely 20