suffered. He further requests that the African Commission direct the Respondent State to provide the Victim with: a) Compensation for his material and moral damages (including loss of earnings through not being able to practice law in exile and separation from his children); b) Rehabilitation; c) Satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, including a full and public apology to the Complainant; acknowledging the wrongdoing and guaranteeing that the Complainant can return to the territory of the Respondent State without fear of arrest, prosecution, harassment or intimidation; and d) Carrying out a full, thorough and independent investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. African Commission's Decision on the Merits 125. The Complainant bases his claims against the Respondent State on the violations of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7(c) and (d), 10(1) and 14 of the African Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 4 - Inviolability of the human being Article 4 of the African Charter states: Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right. 126. Before addressing this article, the Respondent State has raised what looks like a Preliminary Objection. The Respondent State informs the African Commission that its 42nd Ordinary Session held in Accra, Ghana, the African Commission had attempted to have the Respondent State attend hearing where a certain evidence was to be given against it.7 127. The African Commission notes the objection of the Respondent State., However, but it has decided to examine the Communication on its Merits, because from its ruling on Admissibility, it notes that "at its 38th Ordinary Session held from 21 November to 5 December 2005, in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission heard oral submissions from the parties in respect of the Admissibility of the Communication and decided to defer further consideration thereof to the 39th[[/sup]] Ordinary Session." 128. The Admissibility decision sent to both the Complainant and the Respondent State stated that "by Note Verbale and by letter dated 20 June 2007, both parties were duly informed that at the 41st Ordinary Session held in Accra, Ghana, from 16 to 30 May 2007, the African Commission considered the above mentioned Communication and declared it Admissible. The Respondent State was informed of the African Commission's Admissibility decision based on the oral submissions of both parties and duly informed both parties to submit arguments on the Merits - to which the Respondent State also complied with and submitted its arguments on the Merits. The African Commission finds it extraordinary that the Respondent State will now state that it was not part of the Admissibility Oral Hearing at the 41st Ordinary Session. 129. Before going into the analysis of Article 4 and whether the Respondent State violated it, the African Commission will determine the interpretation of Article 4, especially the meaning of 'the right to life' - as a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being. The concept of a right to life is central to debates on the issues of capital punishment, disappearances, euthanasia, self defense and war. 130. The jurisprudence of the African Commission indicates that the right enshrined in Article 4"is the fulcrum of all other rights. It is the fountain through which other rights flow, and any violation of this right without due process amounts to arbitrary deprivation of life"8 - that states not only have to refrain from intentional and unlawful deprivation of life, but must also take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction.9 The right enshrined in this article is the supreme right of the human being. It follows that the deprivation of life by the authorities of the state is a matter of the utmost gravity. The requirements that the right shall be protected by law and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life mean that the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by the authorities of a State. 131. The jurisprudence of the African Commission further indicates that in terms of Article 4 of the African 15