168. In Equality Now, the Commission has interpreted the right to dignity as follows: " ... Article 5 of the Charter guarantees that every individual shall have the right to respect of the dignity inherent in a human being. Human dignity is the fountain of all other rights. At the core of human dignity is the idea and recognition that a human being has unique worth, value and significance that is innate, and not acquired. It also entails that a human being is a moral agent possessed ·with the conscience and personal volition to decide what happens to his or her body. The right to respect of dignity is a guarantee that a human being should not be subjected to acts or omissions that degrade or humiliate him or her. " 169. The Commission notes that the Complainants have not established how the First Complainant's dignity has been stripped by the acts complained of. The Commission is not convinced that the disputed Chieftaincy attaches to the Complainant's humanity, meriting the conclusion that . without it, the recognition to the dignity inherent to her humarity ceases. 170. Similarly, the Commission is not con,fident that the Complainant's submissions or indeed her circumstances in g~neral invoke a violation of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The Commission's jurisprudence has established the scope of inhuman .and degrading treatment, which does not only include physical but also psychological suffering. In International Pen and Others v. Nigeria, the Commission held that: Article 5 of the African Charter prohibits not only torture, but also cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This includes not only actions which cause serious physical or psychological suffering, but which humiliate the individual or force him or her to act against his will or conscience55 171. The Commission has held previously in Curtis Doebler v Sudan that: "While ultimately whether an act constitutes inhuman degrading treatment or punishment depends on the circumstances of the case. The African Commission has stated that the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment is to be interpreted as widely as possible to encompass the widest possible array of physical and mental abuses"56 (the emphasis is ours) 172. The Commission observes that a fundamental element in proving allegations of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is showing the compromise of integrity, either mental or physical, put differently, evidence of ill-treatment. ~~°"" '1,0\ . r,":'•i· ,1:.cF<n 4f1l,qJ- 0 / / ,-,.: 'ld" 11.:., ss Communications 137/94, 139/94, 154/96 & 161/97, para 79 56 Co mmunication 236/2000, para 37 ,. ::; ,{ 8 '. - ?, ~~ O,i, ,t.,:,.l f t) AU-UA ~<2.i \ w 0 f·\\1 ~: J ~~':' <:,Q 0 0 .<1-"}?,eW1N~ "' •"'" ...1'-i:t: -.j? ; ~ I fl 1i