the law, the Commission has a rich stock of case laws on such a right.28 However, in addition to the general prohibition of retroactivity is the exception by which the accused person must enjoy more lenient criminal laws. Though the provisions of Article 7(2) of the African Charter do not expressly provide for the enforcement of more lenient criminal laws, such a principle is established by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Respondent State is a Party.29 In any case, the Commission recognizes such a principle in its Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial.30 80. In the case of the Complainants, the death penalty was pronounced against them whereas the law on enforcement measures of the aforementioned law had been abrogated. Furthermore, a law adopted during their trial, provided for less severe measures. However, the said law was never put into effect until after the military court had announced its judgment. In such circumstances, the Commission concludes that the provisions of Article 7(2) of the African Charter were not complied with. 81. Article 18(1) of the African Charter states that: « the family shall be the natural unit and basis of society. It shall be protected by the State which shall take care of its physical and moral health ». In the opinion of the Commission, the spirit underlying this provision of the Charter is that persons in detention must as a matter of course enjoy material and psychological support of their close relations. This is of paramount importance in view of the particularly insecure detention conditions in Africa. 82. The Commission recalls such a need in various decisions, by highlighting the trauma that a person in detention may suffer from as a result of his inability to have access to his family.31 The Commission has already noted that the fact that the Complainants were deprived of getting in touch with their family is an inhuman treatment. Such a treatment does not guarantee neither the protection of the family, nor its physical and moral health. Consequently, the provisions of Article 18(1) of the African Charter were not complied with. Refer among others to Jawara v. The Gambia Communication 147/95 et 149/96 (2000) RADH 98 (ACHPR 2000) para 63 ; Amnesty International v. Zambia Communication 212/98 (2000) RADH 359 (ACHPR 1999) para 36. 29 The Commission uses the provisions of Article 61 of the African Charter to make reference to the express provisions of the Covenant. 30 Principles N(7)(b) and (c). 31 For instance, Article 19 v. Eritrea op. cit. para 103 ; Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria Communication 143/95 and 150/96 (2000) RADH 243 (ACHPR 1999) para 29 ; Civil Liberties Organisations v. Nigeria op. cit. para 27. 28 17