103.The Complainant refers to the UN Committee against Torture, indicating that it has determined that "a threat could constitute torture". The UN Human Rights Commission and its successor, the UN Human Rights Council, has resolved that "intimidation and coercion, ... , including serious and credible threats, as well as death threats, to the physical integrity of the victim or of a third person, can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or to torture." The Complainant argues that the Victim received a series of death threats from individuals claiming to be NISS officials via telephone prior to his arrest in 2011 and in person when detained incommunicado in the custody of the NISS in Khartoum. 104.The Complainant avers that the Victim was forced to sign unknown documents prior to his release in July 2018, and the safety of his family was threatened. The Complainant states that from the moment of his arrest, the Victim was subjected to a pervasive climate of fear in NISS custody, and he was told at the time of arrest that it would be the last day of his life. The Complainant states that the Victim was threatened with the safety of his family in Darfur. On his release, he was told that if he failed to obey the orders of the NISS, including, if he ever spoke to anyone about his treatment in detention, members of his family would be killed. 105.The Complainant submits that each of the threats made to the Victim by the NISS officials concerned the infliction of serious harm and caused extreme mental anguish and suffering. The Complainant submits that the pervasive nature of the threats and the circumstances in which they were made were so serious that both singly and in combination, they caused severe mental pain and suffering and amounted to torture. Incommunicado Detention 106.The Complainant stated that the African Commission has held that "prolonged incommunicado detention and/or solitary confinement could be held to be a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment."75 The Complainant referred to the African Commission's decision in Article 19 v Eritrea,76 where it held a violation of Article 5 owing to the incommunicado detention of the victims. The Complainant submits that the Victim was detained incommunicado and denied access to his family and a lawyer for the entire period of his detention by the NISS, for over a year. The Complainant submits that the incommunicado detention of the Victim for over one year, constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the African Charter. Denial of Medical Treatment 107.The Complainant referred to the African Commission's Resolution on Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa (The Robben Island Guidelines), which sets out that the right to an independent medical examination is a basic procedutal safeguard for the prevention of torture77 and that states should "~]nsure . / 4ut,\AI• 4,v;/:> /(.'o~~c1AR14r 15 Communicati9n 250/2002 Liesbeth Zegveld and Messie Ephrem v. Eritrea, Decided at the 34t~orclio_,a'"fy s ~o November 2003, 17th Annual Activity Report, para 55 •." " 76 Article 19 v. Eritrea, Communication 275/2003, para 101-102. '.(:!':' .. ~' "!C 77 Resolution on Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, ~Juel, nhu~n -0/ Deg aging Treatment or Punishment in Africa (The Robben Island Guidelines), Part II: Prevention of Torture, .Alt, le 20 (!ij. 1Ji>g I ·;.;,~-:- ......_ • ~- x.,"'I l' _, \;.... J,:,, -:.\.- (1 ,~ ~22 o,, A• R er,,· " V 10~..'U[ £' \)-