197. In their submissions, the Complainants give instances of inhuman and degrading treatment that the Victims were subjected to, and which this Commission has analysed above.67 198. The Respondent State has not denied the allegations presented by the Complainants. It only states that “the Egyptian society rejects any form of AC HP R degrading or inhuman treatment.” In addition, it argues that the investigation carried out by the PPO concluded the existence of „sexual molestation.‟ This raises the question whether sexual molestation is not „inhuman and degrading‟ to qualify as a violation under Article 5 of the African Charter. Is it not tantamount to sexual humiliation, especially with the use of degrading references such as whore and slut? 199. In John K. Modise v Botswana, the African Commission held that the acts suffered by the Victim “Exposed him to personal suffering and indignity in violation of the right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter.”68 Even though the acts in this Communication cannot be compared to the acts in John K. Modise v Botswana there is an aspect of indignity. 200. In Campbell and Cosans v UK, the European Court stated that, “‟treatment‟ itself will not be „degrading‟ unless the person concerned has undergone - either in the eyes of others or in his own eyes - humiliation or 67 68 See generally, the Commission‟s analysis under Articles 2, 3, and 18(3) of the African Charter, and specifically paragraphs 131 to 136 outlining the testimonies of the Victims. Communication 97/93-John K. Modise v. Botswana (2000) ACHPR,para 91 57