126. In the context of this case, the Complainants su bmitted that the Victims' rights to freedom of movement under Article 12 were violated, resulting from the continued threats to the first Victim's life from Islamist fundamentalist groups, from which the Respondent State did not protect her and which have meant that she and her family are unable to return to Sudan safely. Secondly, the failure to take measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of the Complainants against threats by private actors, thus forcing them to leave Sudan against their will to protect themselves and their families, and the actions of NISS agents in detaining the Complainants at the airport and obstructing their departure from Sudan due to false allegations concerning the authentt~H:Yof their travel documentation which proved to be baseless. ;'lg~.{.,.. Article 16: the Right to Health 'W:·~~" 127. The Complainants argued that the first, third, and fp"urth health violated, as guaranteed by Article 16 of the A'ftj<;. "!' previous cases, such as Eg1jptian Initiative/or Personal-Rights' . Purohit and Moore v. The Gambu 3statirl.'ffith~t the ri'gnt to he essentiaHor all other human rights recognized by th ican Charter anli'is vital for'ov,E?rallwell-being. They also cited the Commission's Resolution-pn Access to Health and Need JonMedicines in Africa and the Principles ancl",G,lJ_idelines on t " Implementation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the African Chart~':::enHuman", ):oples' Rig11ts," which assert that the right to health includes access to safewater,s.arhtatio ,'tfood, nutrition, housing, occupational and environmental conditions. .'~.':" ,'" ~ 128. Regarding healthcare in detentionf e Complain turned to previous cases, such as Malawi African '0;,~sociationand Othe Mauritania' nd Monim Elgak, Osman Hummeida and Amir Sulivan}Represented by flO ,,;i:iDMCT) vs. Sudans', in which the Commission held_tilat the State has an obligation to resp~st the right to health for those in detention. They; eqlphasized that the responsibility for the physical integrity and welfare of detali].~iS'V;~tf~~,.with th~JcpmpeteI,lt public authorities. In the present case, the Compla~~nts'j~~l}lglllightea<r'thg. conc~rn expressed by the United Nations High =s: fori Human Righti'reg'arding the physical and mental well-being of Ms d~t~R:~~m, mainly while she was eight months pregnant and 20-monfn-old son in harsh conditions. 66 ""A~ b IJ • i 129. further argued that the rights to health of the Victims were violated in specific ways. Firstly, the first and third Victims were deprived of their basic needs, including access to'food, basic hygiene, and medical care, during their incarceration. The prison guards attempted to conceal these deplorable conditions by moving them to a cleaner cell before visits from human rights organizations and government officials. Communication 323/06, 16 December 2011, Pg 261. n." Communication 241/01,29 May 2003, Para 80. // \\UMA'~~ 64 Communication No. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97, 196/97 and 201 :' ._.0\";0'c"tTM?14,. o Al~ 65 Communication 379/09.14 March 2014, Para 136 , ~ ~\ 66 United Nations, "UN rights office deeply concerned over Sudanese woman facing death for apostqsy", 16 Mar2004\ ~~\ accessibleathttp://www.un.org, last accessed on 19 February 2020 t \. ;) ~ ~ 't 62 o'~ 63 n' .. 'c. !) ~. \ ~. '-~ v / -, AU-LA • /;--h ). 28(f' C-) v ;.J'i;"'\ _'.r- ET Qfc J: § ;;"/ \ ../'. ./ <."'~ /~