212. The Court notes the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, where he summarised the elements constitutive of torture under international law as follows: an infliction of severe pain or suffering that is physical or mental, an element of intent, for a specific purpose and commission by a public official or with involvement or acquiescence of a public official.62 213. Recalling its jurisprudence, the Court reiterates that three main factors are relevant in determining whether the freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment has been violated.63 Firstly, it is clear that, Article 5 of the Charter is absolute as it has no limitation clauses. Secondly, the prohibition in Article 5 of the Charter is to be interpreted so as to provide the widest possible protection against abuse be it physical or mental. Lastly, personal suffering and indignity can take various forms and assessment must always depend on the circumstances of each case. 214. With regards to Article 5 of the Charter being absolute, the Court notes that there is no evidence that the Respondent State has enacted any laws or policies to limit the rights under Article 5 of the Charter. 215. In relation to Article 5 of the Charter being given the widest possible interpretation, the Court notes that torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment can result from either State actions or omissions. 216. With regards to the distinction between torture and cruel treatment, the Court notes the General Comment No. 2 (2007) of the CAT Committee as follows: “…[e]xperience demonstrates that the conditions that give rise to illtreatment frequently facilitate torture and therefore the measures required to prevent torture must be applied to prevent ill-treatment.” 62 Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment A/HRC/13/3/Add.5 dated 5 February 2010. 63 Maige v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 135. 50