The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES to be responsible for torture in violation of Article 5.503 However its recommendations did not include individual reparation, such as compensation for the victims. The Commission recommended that Cameroon: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Abolish all discriminatory practices against people of Northwest and Southwest Cameroon, including equal usage of the English language in business transactions; Stop the transfer of accused persons from the Anglophone provinces for trial in the Francophone provinces; Ensure that every person facing criminal charges be tried under the language he/she understands. In the alternative, the Respondent State must ensure that interpreters are employed in Courts to avoid jeopardising the rights of accused persons; Locate national projects, equitably throughout the country, including Northwest and Southwest Cameroon, in accordance with economic viability as well as regional balance; Pay compensation to companies in Northwest and Southwest Cameroon, which suffered as a result of discriminatory treatment by banks; Enter into constructive dialogue with the Complainants, and in particular, SCNC and SCAPO to resolve the constitutional issues, as well as grievances which could threaten national unity; and Reform the Higher Judicial Council, by ensuring that it is composed of personalities other than the President of the Republic, the Minister for Justice and other members of the Executive Branch. In cases where the Commission has recommended individual reparations, this has usually been unspecified, calling for States to ‘pay adequate compensation’504 or to ‘take appropriate measures to ensure compensation’.505 In IHRDA v. Angola, the complainants made specific requests for compensation for the inhuman and degrading treatment they suffered, and the Commission recommended that a Commission of Inquiry be established to investigate the violations as well as to ensure payment of ‘adequate compensation’.506 However, the Commission has not yet clarified or provided States with guidance as to what constitutes ‘adequate reparation’ or what would be considered ‘appropriate measures’ to ensure reparation for victims of violations of the Charter. 503 ACHPR, Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et. al. v. Cameroon, Comm. No. 266/03, para. 114. 504 ACHPR, Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 288/204, para. 194; ACHPR, Haregewoin GebreSellassie & IHRDA (on behalf of former Dergue Officials) v. Ethiopia, Comm. No. 301/05. 505 ACHPR, Curtis Francis Doebbler v. Sudan, Comm. No. 236/00; ACHPR, Malawi Africa Association and Others v. Mauritania, Comm. Nos. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164-169/97, 210/98; Article 19 v. Eritrea, Comm. No. 275/03. 506 ACHPR, IHRDA v. Angola, Comm. No. 292/04, para. 87. 114