195. The Commission above found that the use of force by the police in breaking up the protest was unjustifiable, and thus the treatment cannot be justified as being a consequence of lawful actions/sanctions. There is further no requirement under the definition for cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment above which suggests that the person concerned must have been under control of the State, only that it must be “committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”. It is thus not necessary to determine whether the people in the park were under the control of the State. 196. The Commission in Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights & INTERIGHTS v. Egypt51 quoted the European Court’s test for ill-treatment, as having to attain “a minimum level of severity”, taking into account (i) the duration of the treatment; (ii) the physical effects of the treatment; (iii) the mental effects of the treatment; and (iv) the sex, age and state of health of the victim. The European Court further held that: “The notion of inhuman treatment covers at least such treatment as deliberately causes severe suffering, mental or physical which in the particular situation, is unjustifiable”. 52 The Commission in the Egyptian Initiative case held that assault of protesters by the police, including being hit, sexually assaulted, insulted, and slapped “amounted to physical and emotional trauma. The treatment also has physical and mental consequences obvious from the injuries sustained.”53 197. In the present case, the Victims were also assaulted and verbally abused, and in addition were separated from their families and taken to undisclosed places of detention. Considering that the Victims were both male and female, and ranged from all ages, both children and adults, as well as the additional mental effect of losing their families in the confusion, and the physical wounds sustained by the Victims, the Commission cannot but find that in this case the treatment amounted to ill-treatment falling under the violations envision in Article 5. 198. In relation to the treatment of the protesters in detention, the Complainants and the State differ on the facts. While the State asserts that the detainees were Communication 323/06, para 193. Combined Cases of Denmark v. Greece, Norway v. Greece, Sweden v. Greece, and Netherlands v. Greece. 53 Para 201. 51 52 53