ensure equality among all human beings."13 77. The Complainants further allege that, the main reason why the Victims were assaulted by the authorities is due to the fact that they hold particular political views, are women and journalists. According to the Complainants, this is evidenced by the sexual nature of the violations. Alleged violation of Article 5 78. The Complainants state that the treatment received by the Victims on 25 May 2005 amounted to a violation of their dignity and to inhuman and degrading treatment and that the assaults were severe and gravely humiliating in violation of Article 5 of the African Charter. They cite the case of Purohit and Moore v. The Gambia,14 where the African Commission ascertained the test for violation of human dignity. 79. They also refer to a Canadian Supreme Court (CSC) judgement in R v. Ewanchuk,15 where a link was made between the right to dignity and the right to equality. The CSC established that violence against women is as much a matter of equality as it is an offence against human dignity and a violation of human rights. The CSC further stated that, sexual assault is an assault upon human dignity and constitutes a denial of any concept of equality for women.16 80. The Complainants argue that the test for defining inhuman and degrading treatment in international, regional and national human rights instruments is whether the treatment complained of is very severe. They aver that inhuman and degrading treatment, as extensively elaborated by the European Court, involves treatment resulting in physical or psychological injuries. They submit that, degrading treatment more specifically is a treatment that grossly humiliates a person, and that, according to the European Court, a treatment of a sexual nature diminishes human dignity. 81. The Complainants refer to the case of Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece17 where the European Court held that, in considering whether treatment is degrading, it had to consider whether the object of such treatment is to humiliate and debase the person concerned, and whether it adversely affected his or her personality. 82. The Complainants also submit that the Respondent State failed in its positive obligations to prevent and investigate the violations, which is a violation of Article 1 of the African Charter. They cite the Commission's decision in Legal Resource Foundation v Zambia18 where it held that "Article 1 of the African Charter requires that the State not only recognize rights, but requires that they shall undertake... measures to give effect to them.19 " 83. The Complainants further submit that the State authorities failed in their obligation to protect the Victims from sexual harassment, assault, abuse and harm from NDP supporters and members of the Riot police. In this regard, they submit that the Respondent State failed in its positive obligation to prevent cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and investigate the allegations impartially, in violation of Article 5 of the African Charter. Alleged violation of Articles 7(1)(a) and 26 84. The Complainants submit that while it is true that the Victims have lodged their Complaints and appealed to challenge the violations, the remedies available would not have been effective. They state that the Victims did not have a right to an impartial and objective investigation and appeal process. It is the view of the Complainants that this shows lack of independence of the PPO and the Appeal Court. Alleged violation of Article 9(2) 85. The Complainants argue that the right of the Victims' freedom of expression has been violated by the Respondent State.20 They argue that the Second, Third and Fourth Victims were attempting to assert their political opinions and to disseminate their views during the protest, and were prevented from doing so through assaults and sexual violence. Alleged violation of Article 16 and 18(3) 86. The Complainants allege that the explicit targeting, intimidation and sexual harassment of the Victims amount to a violation of their rights under Article 18(3) of the African Charter. They submit that these acts have resulted in physical and emotional injury, and have detrimentally affected their physical and mental well-being, contrary to Article 16 of the African Charter. 7