98. Furthermore, the State is obliged to investigate allegations of torture, independently of the origin of the complaint. The formal lodging of a complaint of torture or an express statement of intent to sue is not necessary and it is enough for the Victim to bring the facts related to the allegation of torture to the attention of the authorities.27 99. In the present case, the Complainants do not allege that the Victims have sustained injuries as a result of the alleged beatings and floggings. The Complainants neither allege nor does the evidence reveal that allegations of torture were in fact brought to the attention of the State. The Commission has perused the evidence before it and has not found any evidence that such allegations were made before either the domestic courts or any other body. 100. In Ouko v. Kenya, the Commission held that “although the Complainant has claimed a violation of his right to freedom from torture, he has not substantiated this claim. In the absence of such information, the Commission cannot find a violation as alleged.”28 In Aminu v. Nigeria, on allegations of torture and inhuman treatment on several occasions by the Nigerian security operatives, the Commission held that “In the absence of specific information on the nature of the acts complained of, the Commission is unable to find a violation as alleged.”29 101. The Commission notes that there is no allegation that injuries occurred while in detention. The facts do not reveal a failure by the Respondent State to undertake an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment. In light of the absence of information substantiating the allegations, the Commission declines to find a violation of Article 5 of the Charter. (ii) Violation of Article 6 102. The issue before the Commission is whether the continued detention of the Victims in defiance of the bail order issued by the High Court on 16 November 2005 and of the declarations of unconstitutionality issued by the Constitutional Court in Constitutional Petitions No.15 of 2005 and No.18 of 2005, contravene the right to personal liberty enshrined at Article 6 of the Charter. Article 6 of the Charter states: “Every individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained.” 103. The Commission notes the fundamental importance of the guarantees under Article 6 for securing the personal liberty of every individual and the protection from arbitrary arrests and detention. For this reason, the Commission in its jurisprudence has highlighted the need for any deprivation of liberty to conform strictly to the limitations under Article 6. In Gunme v Cameroon, the Commission stated that “a state 27 Communication No. 187/2001: Dhaou Belgacem Thabti v. Tunisia (14 November 2003) Committee against Torture CAT/C/31/D/187/2001; http://www.bayefsky.com/html/tunisia_t5_cat_187_2001.php 28 Communication 232/99: John D. Ouko v. Kenya (2000) ACHPR, para 26 29 Communication 205/97: Kazeem Aminu v. Nigeria (2000) ACHPR para 16. 17