responsible”. Without such a duty to investigate, the Court noted that “the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity”. The Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 20 on article 7 of the ICCPR prohibiting torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment stated that: “It is the duty of the State party to afford everyone protection through legislative and other measures as may be necessary against the acts prohibited by article 7, whether inflicted by people acting in their official capacity, outside their official capacity or in a private capacity”. In view of the above, the Defendant is responsible for the act of its officials which led to the violation of the Plaintiff rights as found above. i. In conclusion, it is obvious that the Plaintiff did not establish that he was tortured but assaulted contrary to established principles of law. ii. He was temporarily deprived of his liberty in the circumstances unjustified by law and his property (his Passport) was also temporarily seized. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the claim of the Plaintiff partially succeeds in part. DECISION: The Court adjudicating in a public sitting after hearing the parties in last resort, after deliberating according to law; i. DECLARES: 24