The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES the essence of the detainees’ claim, namely that they were detained secretly and without access to lawyers and family. The Commission was equally unimpressed by the Eritrean Government’s assurance that the detainees in Zegveld and Ephrem would be brought before an appropriate court of law ‘as early as possible’.460 The ECOWAS Court of Justice has taken a similar position, finding in favour of victims of torture in cases where States simply deny the claims made regarding torture without providing any substantiating evidence. In Musa Saidykhan v. The Gambia, the complainant was a Gambian journalist who alleged to have been arbitrarily arrested and detained by the Gambian security and intelligence services and held incommunicado for 22 days during which time he was also subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.461 The State’s defense consisted of a complete denial of the allegations and of any knowledge of the complainant’s arrest and detention. The Court found that ‘in the absence of any facts and circumstances from which the Court can say the plaintiff was not speaking the truth, and as the evidence stands unimpeached, the Court is able to accept the plaintiff’s evidence and find the plaintiff was tortured by the defendant’s security agents while in detention’.462 Governments have also on occasion argued that they have acted to uproot torture, for example by prosecuting officials alleged to have committed torture. While prosecution of officials is of course an important measure of accountability for torture, the Commission does not see prosecutions as the only required action and has been careful not to blindly accept such arguments. The Commission rejected such a justification by the Sudanese Government, in the Sudan cases, on the basis that government action was not ‘commensurate with the magnitude of the abuses’.463 Indeed, the Commission has held that investigations and prosecutions of violations of the Charter and other human rights instruments are required to satisfy the State’s obligations; however other forms of redress, including guarantees of non-repetition, will also be required. National security is also invoked as justification for some forms of ill-treatment. In Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et. al. v. Cameroon, the complaint provided details of some victims who were subjected to torture, amputations and denial of medical treatment by Cameroonian law enforcement officers. The State responded to these allegations by stating that some South Cameroonian activists had perpetrated terrorist acts in the country, killing law enforcement officers, vandalising state property 460 Ibid. 461 ECOWAS Court of Justice, Musa Saidykhan v. The Gambia, Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/11/07 (16 December 2010). 462 Ibid., para. 38. 463 ACHPR, Zegveld and Ephrem v. Eritrea, Comm. No. 250/02, para 56. 108