before a judge almost one year after their arrest. The Commission agrees with the Complainants that given the large number of arrested persons and the inherent risk that there were no sufficient grounds for the arrest and detention of at least some of the persons, it was all the more critical to bring all arrested individuals before a judge within the shortest possible time. The Commission considers that the failure to do so constitutes a violation of Article 7 (1) (d) of the Charter. The lack of information about the grounds of arrest also constituted a violation of Article 7 (1) read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Charter. 89. Regarding the right to defence, including the right to be defended by Counsel of one's choice, the Commission has established in the Robben Island Guidelines and in the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial in Africa that any person who has been arrested or detained shall have prompt access to a lawyer.30 90. It has been submitted by the Complainants that the victims were not given access to a lawyer until the 26 February 2006; that is for more than nine months after they were arrested. The Commission considers that not having access to Counsel for such a long period of time while in detention impeded the ability of the victims to adequately assure their defence, and constitutes a violation of article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter. Alleged violation of Article 1 91. Article 1 of the Charter stipulates that ...'parties to the Charter shall recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter and shall adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them'. The Commission has held in previous Communications that a violation of any provision of the Charter by a State Party automatically engages its responsibility under Article 1.31 92. The Commission considers that if a State Party fails to respect, protect, promote or fulfill any of the rights guaranteed in the Charter, this constitutes a violation of Article 1 of African Charter. In the present Communication, the Commission has reached the conclusion that the Respondent State's agents failed to protect the victims from being subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment; and failed to respect their right to liberty as well as their right to a fair trial. The Respondent State also failed to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by its agents and took no measures to afford an adequate remedy to the victims. The failure to put in place an adequate legislative framework to protect the physical integrity of individuals within its jurisdiction also constitutes a failure on the part of the Respondent State to uphold its obligations under Article 1 of the Charter. Decision of the Commission on the Merits 93. Based on the above, the African Commission on Human and Peoples': 1. Finds that the Republic of The Sudan has violated Articles 1, 5, 6 and 7 (1) (c)(d) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Right; 2. Requests the Republic of Sudan to: a) Pay adequate compensation to the victims named in the present Communication in accordance with the domestic law for the rights violated; b) Initiate an effective and impartial investigation into the circumstances of arrest and detention and the subsequent treatment of the Complainants. c) Where appropriate, amend the legislation incompatible with the Charter. d) Train security officers on relevant standards concerning adherence to custodial safeguards and the prohibition of torture. 3. Inform the Commission, in accordance with Rule 112 (2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, within one hundred and eighty days (180) of the notification of the present decision of the measures taken to implement the present decision. Done in Banjul, The Gambia at the 54th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights held from 22 October to 5 November 2013. 1 Communication Nos. 147/95 and 149/96 - Dawda Jawara v. The Gambia, para.32. 10