provided with residency, food and medical care, the Complainants assert that detainees were denied essential medical treatment, food, access to information regarding family members who were also arrested and taken to different locations and access to lawyers or the NGOs representing them. 54 The State submits that UNHCR staff were allowed to visit those who remained in the shelters. There is agreement between the State and the Complainants that the card carrying refugees were released on 31 December, the day after the incident in the park, and that by 11 February 2006 all remaining detainees had been released. 199. The arguments on lack of access to medical care, food, etc. appear to be based on the evidence of the Victims. On the evidence of the Victims they were provided with some medical treatment,55 although at times insufficient. It can thus not be said that they were denied medical treatment. In addition, the Victims who testify on access to food indicate that it took between twelve and fourteen hours from the time of their arrest until they were provided with food.56 While this is a long time, it cannot be said that they were denied food. The Commission finds that this treatment thus does not meet the severity threshold under Article 5. 200. With regard to the submission that they were denied access to information regarding family members, it is clear that a person separated from their family in the night and who has no information on where they are or even whether they are alive, will be suffering considerable anguish. However, it should also be considered whether the information was withheld intentionally, or whether, given the chaos in which the removal took place, as well as the number of people in custody (more than two thousand), it is realistic to expect that the State would be able to inform each person about the whereabouts of their family in the one day period before most of them were released. 201. Yet, the Commission held in Curtis Doebbler v Sudan, that: "ultimately whether an act constitutes inhuman degrading treatment or punishment depends on the circumstances of the case. The African Commission has stated that the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment This is corroborated by the evidence from Victims Three, Five, Six and Seven above. The Second Victim was given a bandage for her head wound; the Third Victim was taken to hospital for treatment of his eye and the head injuries sustained by the Seventh Victim were stitched. 56 See submissions of Fifth and Sixth Victims. 54 55 54