The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES the matter fully’.427 For instance, in a case concerning torture or non-refoulement, the Commission could request a Respondent State to ensure abatement of the torture, preservation of the instruments of torture or that the refugee is not expelled from its territory pending the determination of the merits.428 In the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and INTERIGHTS v. Egypt case, the Commission successfully indicated provisional measures to stop an impending execution.429 It is important to note that provisional measures requested can require both negative measures, such as those described calling on a respondent State to desist from taking certain actions, as well as positive measures, enjoining a respondent State from undertaking certain measures such as provision of medical care for a detainee. The main problem with these orders is non-compliance by States. Provisional measures in the case of Ken Saro-Wiwa, Jr.430 and in the Bosch case431 were disregarded by Nigeria and Botswana, respectively, and both cases resulted in the execution of applicants with pending communications. The Court Protocol allows for provisional measures in cases ‘of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable harm to persons’.432 This power is particularly important in torture cases. Unlike the African Commission, whose powers to indicate interim relief are contained in its Rules of Procedure, the powers of the Court to indicate interim relief are established by the Protocol, suggesting that any interim measures indicated by the Court are as unequivocally binding on the States against which they are issued as judgements of the Court.433 The Court has ordered provisional measures in several cases, calling for Respondent States to take actions to avoid irreparable harm. In African Commission of Human and People’s Rights v. Republic of Kenya, regarding the complaint received by the African Commission on the forced eviction of the Ogiek indigenous ethnic group from their traditional lands in the Mau forest, the Court ordered provisional measures calling on the Government of Kenya to reinstate the ban on transactions of the land in dispute to prevent irreparable harm to the Ogiek people.434 In Lohe Issa Konate v. Burkina Faso, involving a journalist who was convicted for libel and sentenced to 427 ACHPR, INTERIGHTS (on behalf of Jose Domingos Sikunda) v. Namibia Comm. No. 239/2001, 31st Ordinary Session (16 May 2002). 428 Ibid. 429 ACHPR, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and INTERIGHTS v. Egypt, Comm. No. 334/06, para. 78. 430 ACHPR, International Pen, Constitutional Rights Project, INTERIGHTS (on behalf of Ken Saro-Wiwa, Jr.) and Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria, Comm. Nos. 137/94, 139/94, 154/96 & 161/97. 431 ACHPR, INTERIGHTS (on behalf of Mariette Sonjaleen Bosch) v. Botswana, Comm. No. 240/2001.. 432 African Human Rights Court Protocol, supra note 22, art. 27(2). 433 See Interim Report of the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights notifying the Executive Council of Non-Compliance by a State, in accordance with Article 31 of the Protocol (2013), para. 8. 434 African Court, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya. App. No. 006/2012 (15 March 2013). 102