0b09'06 searches are a security measure performed upon entry and exit of most prisons in the Respondent state". ln its Rejoinder, the Respondent State restates its position, putting the Applicant to strict proof to show that he was subject to any such treatment. 86 Article 5 of the charter, which the Applicant alleges has been violated, provides as follows "Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of 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"" 87. The issue for determination is whether the anal search performed on the Applicant by agents of the Respondent State in the presence of his children constitutes a violation of his right to dignity. 88. The court observes that, in assessing generally whether the right to dignity protected by Article considered 5 of the Charter was violated, the African Commission three main factors. First, Article 5 has no llimitation clause. The prohibition of indignity manifested in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is thus absolute.ll Second, the prohibition must be interpreted to extend to the widest possible protection against abuse, whether physical or mental.12 Finally, personal suffering and indigni$ can take various forms and assessment will depend on the circumstances of each case.13 89. With respect to body search that bears on the intimacy of the person as arose in the instant matter, the European court of Human Rights (ECHR) has held that the fact of prison guards forcing a person to bend over and squat while they 1.1 e 71. see Huri-Laws v. Nigeria communication 22sl98 (2ooo) AHRLR 273 (AcHpR 2000), 41. s See Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria communicaiion ziq,€a (2000) AHRLR zoz ln6rien 2oo0), 13 See John Modise v. Botswana mmun n 97/93 (2000) AHRLR 30 (ACHPR 2000), S s 22 S