59. Communications 164/97-196/97 were received by the Secretariat in April 1997. The beneficiaries of the alleged victims submitted them all. th st 60. On 6 October 1997, the Secretariat received a Note Verbale dated the 1 of the same month, with reference number 075/MAEC communicating the Mauritanian government’s reaction to the accusations made against it. The gist was that Mauritania called on the Commission not to be seized of the said communications for the reason that they “deal with a naturally deplorable, but peculiar and exceptional situation [...] that has in any case since been surmounted... ”. th 61. On 9 October 1997, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the said note, pointing out that the fact that the Mauritanian state had paid compensation to the beneficiaries of the victim of the alleged violations (which are in any case not denied by the state) cannot invalidate the Commission’s deliberations. rd 62. At the 23 Session, the Commission adjudged on the admissibility of the communications and decided to combine the procedure followed for the present communications with those for communications 54/91, 61/91, 96/93, 98/93, 196/97 and 210/98. The Commission referred the th dossiers for consideration as to the merits at its 24 Session. 63. Communication 210/98 was submitted by the Association mauritanienne des droits de l’Homme (AMDH, Mauritanian Human Rights Association), on behalf of the Collectif des rescapés, anciens détenus civils torturés (CRADPOCIT, Collective of Survivors, Ex-Civilian Detainees and the Tortured), against Mauritania. It alleges that during the bloody political events that troubled Mauritania between 1986 and 1991, those who have now joined together under the umbrella of CRADPOCIT were arrested, along with other Mauritanian citizens of black African stock and detained in the Nouakchott civil prison, and later transferred to various gaols where they were subjected to torture and other inhuman and degrading forms of treatment; this is alleged to have led to the death of some of their co-detainees. 64. After more than fifteen days of detention, some of them were released, while others were charged [in] court and held in the civilian prisons. 65. Following a number of court cases, some of those on remand were released and others were given suspended sentences, while yet others were sentenced to prison terms varying from three months to five years. These verdicts were aggravated with loss of civic rights, heavy fines and banishment after release. 66. In 1993, members of the armed forces who had been subjected to the same treatment as those who came together under CRADPOCIT were granted pension benefit coupons. Imbued with the hope rd raised by this measure, they addressed a letter to the President of the Republic on 3 November 1993, in which they demanded their rehabilitation, in line with what had been provided to their compatriots of Arabo-Berber origin and the military personnel of black African origin. This move yielded no results. 67. Two years later, they addressed a second letter to the Head of State, with the same demands, without achieving any better results than in 1993. It was after this second failure that they decided to constitute themselves into a collective in order to better defend their rights. Application for the official recognition of the said collective (CRADPOCIT) was addressed to the Ministry of Interior. At the same time, its founding documents were sent to the Head of State, the Presidents of the Senate and the National Assembly, as well as the Mediator of the Republic, with the same demands annexed in all cases. 68. The complainant claims that as of the time of the arrest of the members of CRADPOCIT, the majority of them were civil servants who had each accumulated ten to twenty years of service. Furthermore, the complainant claims that at present they are subject to the most precarious living conditions, aggravated by unemployment and onerous family responsibilities. Some of them have even seen their homes broken following divorces that they were unable to prevent. th 69. The communication was received by the Secretariat of the Commission on 26 January 1998. rd th 70. At the 23 Ordinary Session, held from 20-29 April 1998 in Banjul (The Gambia), the Commission decided: