The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES nearly always the body of the victim. This is why habeas corpus is often an effective remedy. Denial of the right to habeas corpus procedures thus triggers an exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies.248 In Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria, the Commission was, however, equivocal on the exact consequences of a denial of the right to habeas corpus procedures in terms of State responsibility under the Charter. In this case, the Nigerian Government had denied certain detained journalists the right to access to habeas corpus through the use of ouster clauses. Although, it concluded that ‘deprivation of the right of habeas corpus alone does not automatically violate Article 6 (personal liberty)’,249 the Commission found that detention without trial or charge is contrary to Article 6. However, concerning habeas corpus, it argued that the real question must be ‘whether the right of habeas corpus, as it has developed in the common law systems, is a necessary corollary to the protection in Article 6 and whether its suspension thus violates this Article’.250 While the Commission’s decision disappointingly declined to answer this question in that case, the Commission appeared to answer it in the affirmative in Kazeem Aminu v. Nigeria.251 The Commission further supported its finding in the Kazeem Aminu case by holding that the denial of the right to habeas corpus violates the right to be heard under Article 7(1)(a).252 j. Refoulement Article 5 of the Charter also implicitly obliges States Parties to refrain from returning individuals to a place where they may be at risk of a violation of Article 5.253 The State is obliged to comply strictly with due process norms before carrying out expulsions.254 The African Commission has thus held the due process guarantees in Article 7 of the African Charter to be applicable to the involuntary removal of a person from his State of residence or host State.255 The Commission has elaborated that the right of the individual in Article 7 includes a State duty to establish structures to enable the exercise of this right.256 This implies a State duty to extend legal and other material assistance to persons seeking refuge within the State’s territory 248 ACHPR, Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 153/96, 26th Ordinary Session (15 November 1999), para. 10. 249 Ibid., para. 24. 250 Ibid., para. 25. 251 ACHPR, Kazeem Aminu v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 205/97, 27th Ordinary Session (11 May 200), para.21. 252 ACHPR, Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 153/96, para. 18. 253 The Robben Island Guidelines refer to a risk of torture at para 15 and in John K. Modise v. Botswana, Comm. No. 97/93, para. 91, the ACHPR applied the principle in relation to a risk of a violation of human dignity. 254 ACHPR, OMCT v. Rwanda, Comm. Nos. 27/89, 49/91 & 99/93, para. 34. 255 Ibid. 256 ACHPR, Constitutional Rights Project (in respect of Zamani Lekwot and 6 Others) v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 87/93, 17th Ordinary Session (22 March 1995), reprinted in (1996) 3 International Human Rights Reports 137. 64