.p..C~~Il. Q. ·';;" .~ m---.,.£o< ~ Ai'fr'lc\aCll camHI~' u°ISSI'P on alRl c Human nights our Collective Responsibility i Human and Peoples' Rights 89. The Complainants submit therefore that the above differential treatment was in violation of the Victim's right to not be discriminated against, as provided for in Article 2 of the African Charter, including his right to be treated equally under the law, provided for in Article 3 of the African Charter. Alleged violation of Article 12 of the African Charter 90. The Complainants submit that the Victim has been precluded from traveling abroad. 91. They submit therefore, that the Respondent State in so doing, violated the Victim's right to travel abroad, which right is guaranteed in ~r,ticle;~go£.theAfrican Charter ~:,' " .!'. ')~!':-~--.) ~.:.:-,-, Alleged violation of Article 5 of the African Charter 92. The Complainants submit that the cumulative effect of the .rights violations detailed above is anti-thesis to the idea of dignity inherent in the human person, and provided for in the African Charter. The further indicate that, for example, deprivation of access to the fa.tnilyrri~mbers:is degrading both to the Victim and his family members. R' ~ 93. Citing the Commission's decision in Liesbeth Zegoeld and Mussie Ephrem v Eritrea'? the Complainants submit that the longer the Victim remains under incommunicado detention, the greater the risks are for him to be exposed to additional torturous acts of the Respondent State. Alleged violation of Article 1of the African Charter 94. Citing the Commission's decision in Dauida Jawara v The Gambia the Complainants submit further that a violation of any of the provisions contained in the African Charter is an automatic violation of Article 1 of the African Charter. 39 Liesbeth Zegveld and Mussie Ephrem v Eritrea, Communication 250/02, para 55 https:/achpr.au.intiO U' a