PART B: Substantive Norms on Torture in the African Regional Human Rights System In addition to the individuals named in the communications, there are thousands of other executions in Sudan. Even if these are not all the work of forces of the Government, the Government has a responsibility to protect all people residing under its jurisdiction (see ACHPR/74/91:93, Union des Jeunes Avocats v. Chad). Even if Sudan is going through a civil war, civilians in areas of strife are especially vulnerable and the State must take all possible measures to ensure that they are treated in accordance with international humanitarian law. The investigations undertaken by the Government are a positive step, but their scope and depth fall short of what is required to prevent and punish extra-judicial executions. Investigations must be carried out by entirely independent individuals, provided with the necessary resources, and their findings should be made public and prosecutions initiated in accordance with the information uncovered. Constituting a commission of the District Prosecutor and police and security officials, as was the case in the 1987 Commission of Enquiry set up by the Governor of South Darfur, overlooks the possibility that police and security forces may be implicated in the very massacres they are charged to investigate. The commission of enquiry, in the Commission’s view, by its very composition, does not provide the required guarantees of impartiality and independence. Immunities and Amnesties Immunities and amnesties for the crime of torture are considered incompatible with the obligations of States to prohibit, prevent and punish torture under international law.268 The Robben Island Guidelines clearly state that ensuring there is no immunity or amnesty for crimes of torture and ill-treatment is an essential component of combating impunity for such crimes.269 The African Commission has upheld this principle in its jurisprudence.270 In the case of Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe, the Commission held that the Clemency Law No. 1 of 2000 which prohibited prosecution and provided for liberation of perpetrators of ‘politically motivated crimes’, ‘not only encouraged impunity but effectively foreclosed any available avenue for the alleged abuses to be investigated…’271 Finding the Clemency Law to constitute a violation of articles 1 and 7 of the Charter, the Commission concluded its findings by stating that, ‘[t] he granting of amnesty to absolve perpetrators of human rights violations from accountability violates the right of victims to an effective remedy.’272 268 UN Committee Against Torture, General Comment No. 3, (2012) UN Doc. CAT/C/GC/3, para. 38. 269 Robben Island Guidelines, para. 16. 270 ACHPR, Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania, Comm. Nos. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164-169/97 & 210/98; Jean Yokovi Degli on behalf of Corporal N. Bikagni, Union Interafricaine des Droits de l’Homme, Commission International de Juristes v. Togo, Comm. Nos. 83/92, 88/93 & 91/93, 17th Ordinary Session (22nd May 1995). 271 ACHPR, Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 245/02, para. 211. 272 Ibid., para. 215. 67