The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES regarding the settlement, including an explanation of the settlement reached, recommendations for implementing the settlement, and the role of the Commission in monitoring compliance with the terms agreed. If the terms of the settlement are not implemented, at the request of the complainant the Commission may continue to process the complaint under its regular procedure.441 Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure outline the process for amicable settlements in the context of inter-State complaints; however there is no precedent of this procedure being used. The use of amicable settlementsis derived from the Commission’s understanding that the individual communications procedure is aimed at dialogue and peaceful resolution of disputes. Other human rights treaty bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, have also made use of this process on numerous occasions. INTERIGHTS (on behalf of Safia Yakubu Husaini and Others) v. Nigeria442 provides a good example of the benefits and pitfalls of amicable settlements in the context of allegations of torture and inhuman punishment. This complaint was brought on behalf a number of people who were convicted and sentenced under Shari’a penal law in some Nigerian states. Pending finalisation of the communication, the Commission invoked Rule 111 to ensure that persons sentenced to death were not executed. The President of Nigeria indicated that the administration would ‘leave no stone unturned’ in ensuring that the executions did not occur. On the implicit ground that this relief was granted, the complainant withdrew the case. Although the most severe form of harm was averted, the withdrawal also meant that many other elements of the communication, related to the forms of punishment and the lack of fair trial guarantees under Shari’a law, were eventually not addressed. Although both parties are required to agree to the terms of the settlement, there is no requirement or guarantee that the Commission will accept those terms if, in the opinion of the Commission, the terms do not comply with ‘respect for human rights’. Moreover, when serious human rights violations such as torture are alleged, the likelihood of an amicable settlement may be remote, in part, because dialogue is foreclosed by the animosity between the parties. Amicable settlement presumes a willingness on the part of both parties to resolve the underlying cause of the violation without taking the case to a more formal stage. States may be more prepared to settle matters amicably than to proceed to a hearing or judgement that would otherwise expose them to unfavourable publicity. 441 Ibid. 442 ACHPR, INTERIGHTS (on behalf of Safiya Yakubu Husaini and Others) v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 269/2003. 104