new government inherits the previous government's international obligations, including the responsibility for the previous government's mismanagement’ and the change of government in the Respondent State does not extinguish a claim before the Commission. The Commission further stated that even if the present government did not commit the human rights abuses complained of, it is responsible for the reparation of the abuses.24 71. In line with its previous decisions, the Commission in this Communication holds that it makes its ruling by considering the alleged facts as at the time of submission of the Complaint.25 Therefore, the release of the Victim from detention as well as other positive steps taken by the Respondent State after submission has no bearing on the decision of the Commission. 72. Lastly, the Respondent State makes references to various laws and rulings without demonstrating how they would have contributed to the availability of an effective and sufficient remedy for the Victim. In Article 19 v. Eritrea, the Commission noted that the Respondent State merely listed in abstracto the existence of remedies without relating them to the circumstances of the case, and without showing how they might provide effective redress in the circumstances of the case.26 Therefore, merely stating domestic laws and rulings without illustrating how they would have redressed the Complainants allegations is not enough to illustrate the existence of available, effective and sufficient remedies. 73. In view of the foregoing, the Commission declares the Communication admissible. Merits Complainants’ Submission on the Merits Alleged violation of Article 5 Abuse of the Victim constitutes torture 74. The Complainants submit that while in detention, the Victim was regularly subjected to physical and psychological pain during his interrogations and for the purpose of punishment in violation of Article 5 of the Charter. The Complainants aver that the Victim suffered repeated beatings including with fists and rubber sticks, electroshocks, and was hung by his wrists and ankles. 75. The Complainants submit that the psychological impact of the torture was amplified by the helpless condition of the Victim as he was often handcuffed and blindfolded during questionings and beatings. The Complainants submit that the have no effect whatsoever on past acts of violation and that, under its mandate of protection, it must make a ruling on the communication. See, Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v Sudan (n 7 above), 39 24 Achutan and another v. Malawi (n 9 above), 12. 25 See, Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v Sudan (n 7 above), 40 and Organisation mondiale contre la torture et al v Rwanda (n 6 above), 21. 26 Article 19 v. Eritrea (n 11 above), 73. 11