The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES from his home in Tanzania in 2003, blindfolded and flown to a secret detention facility in Djibouti. He alleges that he was then transferred by the Djibouti authorities to the custody of the United States, flown to Afghanistan and detained in a secret prison, incommunicado, for sixteen months before being released without charge. He alleges that he was subjected to torture and other ill-treatment in Djibouti and Afghanistan. The applicant alleges violations of Articles of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(1), 12(4), 14 and 18 of the Charter. As of November 2013, the case was still awaiting a decision on admissibility. m. Procedural Duties Duty to Investigate and Punish Where conduct constituting a violation of the Charter is alleged, the State is obliged to investigate it independently and to ensure appropriate punishment for those implicated. In Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Sudan, the Commission cited the decision of the European Court on Human Rights in Jordan v. UK to set standards of effectiveness for investigations into alleged human rights violations.263 The Commission found that the continuation of the violations alleged in the complaint since it was submitted ‘demonstrates a weakness of the judicial system and lack of effectiveness to guarantee effective investigations…’264 The Commission held that Sudan had violated Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter due to its ‘failure to ‘act diligently to protect the civilian population in Darfur…’265 Conversely, in Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe, the Commission failed to find a violation of Articles 4 and 5 as the acts in question were carried out by non-State actors and the Commission found that the State had exercised due diligence, as best as possible under the circumstances, to investigate the allegations.266 Interestingly, this decision makes no reference to standards of effectiveness for investigations into alleged violations of the Charter. In the Sudan cases, the Commission found that ‘prisoners were executed after summary and arbitrary trials and that unarmed civilians were also victims of extra-judicial executions’.267 Noting that the State had provided ‘no specific information on the said executions’, the Commission continued: 263 264 265 266 267 66 information see: http://www.interights.org/al-asad/index.html. ACHPR, Sudan Human Rights Organisation and COHRE v. Sudan, Comm. Nos. 279/03 & 296/05, para. 150. Ibid., para. 153. Ibid., para. 168. ACHPR, Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 245/02, para 181-183. ACHPR, Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, Comm. Nos. 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93, para. 48; see also, ACHPR, Malawi Africa Association and Others v. Mauritania, Comm. Nos. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164-169/97 & 210/98, para. 119.