with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity... 192. Article 16(2) of the same Convention adds that "The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment..." Accordingly, the spirit of the UN Convention Against Torture shall apply even in the context of the African Charter, as authorised by Article 61 of the same. 193. Under the European Human Rights System, the European Court has also underscored the determining factor to qualify an act as 'ill-treatment,' which is that; the act must "attain a minimum level of severity". On this ground, the Court has outlined four main criterion: i. The duration of the treatment; ii. The physical effects of the treatment; iii. The mental effects of the treatment; and iv. The sex, age and state of health of the victim 194. This test was substantiated in Ireland v UK, where the Court held that: As was emphasised by the Commission, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 (art 3). The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim, etc.60 195. Furthermore, in the combined Cases of Denmark v. Greece,61 Norway v. Greece,62 Sweden v. Greece,63 and Netherlands v. Greece,64 popularly referred to as the Greek Case, the European Commission held that ... "The notion of inhuman treatment covers at least such treatment as deliberately causes severe suffering, mental or physical which in the particular situation, is unjustifiable..."65 In the same case, the European Commission also considered that, for an act to be degrading there must be some form of 'gross humiliation.'66 196. Having discussed the principle of inhuman and degrading treatment and indignity, the African Commission will rely on the criterion provided by its jurisprudence that: "Acts of inhuman and degrading treatment "Not only cause serious physical or psychological suffering, but also humiliate the individual...' and 'Can be interpreted to extend to the widest possible protection against abuses, whether physical or mental.' 197. In their submissions, the Complainants give instances of inhuman and degrading treatment that the Victims were subjected to, and which this Commission has analysed above.67 198. The Respondent State has not denied the allegations presented by the Complainants. It only states that "the Egyptian society rejects any form of degrading or inhuman treatment." In addition, it argues that the investigation carried out by the PPO concluded the existence of 'sexual molestation.' This raises the question whether sexual molestation is not 'inhuman and degrading' to qualify as a violation under Article 5 of the African Charter. Is it not tantamount to sexual humiliation, especially with the use of degrading references such as whore and slut? 199. In John K. Modise v Botswana, the African Commission held that the acts suffered by the Victim "Exposed him to personal suffering and indignity in violation of the right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter."68 Even though the acts in this Communication cannot be compared to the acts in John K. Modise v Botswana there is an aspect of indignity. 200. In Campbell and Cosans v UK, the European Court stated that, "treatment' itself will not be 'degrading' unless the person concerned has undergone - either in the eyes of others or in his own eyes humiliation or debasement attaining a minimum level of severity. That level has to be assessed with regard to the circumstances of the case."69 201. In the present Communication, the African Commission finds that the treatment against the Victims amount to physical and emotional trauma. The treatment also has physical and mental consequences obvious from the injuries sustained. 202. Furthermore, the level of suffering occasioned by the acts perpetrated on the Victims which amount to inhuman and degrading treatment cannot be overlooked. It is the Commission's view that the acts were debasing and humiliating, sufficiently severe to fall within the ambit of the test provided by John K. Modise v Botswana and the European Court to establish inhuman and degrading treatment, and consequently, the scope of Article 5 of the African Charter.. It is also the Commission's view that the Respondent State has conceded that the Victims were subject to inhuman and degrading treatment by admitting sexual 18