2 See Part III, Chapter I of the Criminal Procedure Code 3 Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code 4 Section 46 of the Police Forces Act of 1999 and Section 45 (1) of the Police Act of 2008. 5 Article 146 (1) Civil Transaction Act of 1984 6 See European Court of Human Rights, Assenov and Others v Bulgaria, (1999) 28 EHRR 652 para 86 × The Court recalls that under Bulgarian law it is not possible for a complainant to initiate a criminal prosecution in respect of offences allegedly committed by agents of the State in the performance of their duties (see paragraph 58 above). It notes that the applicants made numerous appeals to the prosecuting authorities at all levels, requesting that a full criminal investigation be carried out into Mr Assenov's allegations of ill-treatment by the police and that the officers concerned be prosecuted (see paragraphs 12-31 above). It considers that, having exhausted all the possibilities available to him within the criminal justice system, the applicant was not required, in the absence of a criminal prosecution in connection with his complaints, to embark on another attempt to obtain redress by bringing a civil action for damages. It follows, therefore, that the Government's preliminary objection must be rejected. 7 Ibid, para 77, 78 with further references 8 See ; Communication 71/92 - Recontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de l'Homme v Zambia (1997) para 10. 9 See Articles 17-19 × 17. Ensure the establishment of readily accessible and fully independent mechanisms to which all persons can bring their allegations of torture and ill-treatment. 18. Ensure that whenever persons who claimed to have been or who appear to have been tortured or ill-treated are brought before competent authorities an investigation shall be initiated. 19. Investigations into all allegations of torture or ill-treatment, shall be conducted promptly, impartially and effectively, guided by the UN Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (The Istanbul Protocol)[/list] . of the Resolution and Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa, adopted by the African Commission at its 32nd Ordinary Session as an authoritative interpretation of Article 5 of the African Charter on the prohibition of torture. See also Articles 12 & 13 × Article 12. Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction. Article 13. Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given. of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (which Sudan has signed), also oblige State Parties to conduct prompt and impartial investigations whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed; See also Article 19 v Eritrea wherein the Commission found that "whenever there is a crime that can be investigated and prosecuted by the state on its own initiative, the state has the obligation to move the criminal process forward to its ultimate conclusion. In such cases one cannot demand that the Complainants, or the victims or their family members assume the task of exhausting domestic remedies when it is up to the state to investigate the facts and bring the accused persons to court in accordance with both domestic and international fair trial standards' (Communication 275/03 - Article 19 v Eritrea, para 72) 10 See Communication 275/2003, ACHPR (2007) 22nd Activity Report paras 77 & 78. 11 SeeCommunication 87/98 (sic!) - Constitutional Rights Project (in respect of Zamani Lekwot and 6 others v. Nigeria, ACHPR (2000), 8th Activity Report ; see also Communication 149/96 - Sir Dawda Jawara v. The Gambia, ACHPR (2000) 13th Activity Report paras 31-32. 12 Communication 245/2002 (2006), Zimbawe Human Rights NGO Forum/Zimbabwe , para.180 and Communication 334/06 (2011), Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interrights v Egypt para 162 13 Colibaba v. Moldova (Appl. no. 29089/06), ECtHR, Judgment of 23 October 2007, para. 43 × Where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to ill-treatment (see Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 80, 12 October 2004). It is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how the injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the 11