134. To further support his argument, the Complainant refers to the African Commission's Principles and Guidelines on the Implementation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. He contends that the document introduces the concept of minimum core obligations which are non-derogable and exist regardless of available resources. The Complainant refers the Commission to its findings in: Media Rights Agenda and Others v Nigeria, 54 International Pen and Others (on behalf of Saro-Wiwa) v Nigeria 55 and Malawi African Association and Others v Mauritania,56 wherein the Commission found that conducts endangering a prisoner's health amounts to a violation of Article 16 of the African Charter. Accordingly, the Complainant submits that the Respondent State must be held to the same standards. Alleged violation of Article 1 of the African Charter 135. Article 1 of the African Charter provides that State Parties shall recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined therein and shall undertake to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to them. The Complainant refers to Sudan Human Rights Organization & Centre on Housing Rights nnd Evictions (COHRE) v Sudan wherein the African Commission held that a rights violation implies a violation of Article 1, insofar as the Respondent State failed to prevent the violation.57 136. The Complainant alleges that the National Security Act created the circumstances that allowed the NISS and State security apparatus to abuse the Complainant. He therefore submits that the Respondent State's failure to prevent the violations of the provisions of the African Charter, and its reliance on vague provisions of the National Security Act and Emergency Law to justify the abuse constitutes a violation of Article 1 of the African Charter. 137.In support of these allegations, the Complainant has submitted three documents as exhibits. They include: documentation of counselling therapy sessions undertaken and two witness statement of the facts alleged. Commission's Analysis on the Merits 138. As indicated above, the Respondent State failed to submit its observation on the merits, despite the opportunity accorded it in accordance with Rule 113 (2) Media Rights Agenda, Constitutional Rights Project, Media Rights Agenda and Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria. 55 Communication 137/94-139/94--154/96-161/97 - Intemati ~~~[h ·onal Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Interights (on behalfof Ken Saro- • 56Com munication 54/91-61/91-98/93-164/97-196/97-21 ..-~ 6 ociation and Others v. Mauritania. 1I"'' 57 Conmmnication 279/03-296/05 - Sudan Human Rights 11 Hbusing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v Sudan para 227. : 54 Communication 105/93-128/94--130/ 94-152/96 - i f 1./--;, o"-'<\,'-l/ 0Q'-/ l OE.$ I'"-/. 32 I P age