imum level of severity that amounts to ill-treatment even without additional evidence that the person is/ was ill-treated. According to the IACtHR, “it is inherent in human nature that all those subjected to…enforced disappearance experience intense suffering, anguish, terror and feelings of powerlessness and insecurity.”157 The HRCt has consistently acknowledged that ED amounts to a violation of Article 7 of the ICCPR and has granted reparations to the relatives of the victims.165 For instance, in the case of Bousroual v. Algeria, where the applicant was the wife of an Algerian teacher arrested in 1994, the Committee noted “the anguish and stress caused to the author by the disappearance of her husband and the continued uncertainty concerning his fate and whereabouts” and found a violation of Article 7 of the Covenant with regard to her husband as well as herself.166 Moreover, in Icic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, the HRCt considered that forcing a relative to declare their loved one dead constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 7.167 Ill treatment and torture in relation to the relatives of the disappeared The ACHPR has not explicitly established a violation of Article 5 of the African Charter for the relatives of victims. However, in the Kilwa decision, the Commission acknowledged that the massive human rights violations perpetrated in Kilwa had violated the dignity of Kilwa’s population.158 As a consequence, the Commission ordered damages to be paid to the relatives of the victims, and adequate psycho-social assistance to be granted to them and other inhabitants of Kilwa impacted by the events.159 Acceptance that the distress and suffering of the victims’ relatives amounts to torture and ill-treatment has been crucial in establishing them as victims in cases of ED.168 Relying on the fact that the anxiety and grief caused by ED of a family member constitutes “suffering that reaches the threshold of torture”,169 the WGEID has acknowledged that “both the disappeared person and those who have suffered harm as a result of the disappearance are to be considered victims of the enforced disappearance and are therefore entitled to obtain reparation.”170 While the African Commission has very little jurisprudence on ED, the broad definition of “victim” adopted by the ACHPR in the Zongo case could be helpful in establishing a wide scope of victims in cases of ED.160 In this case, the ACHPR established that the notion of victims should not necessarily be limited to first-line heirs, but might also include other close relatives of the deceased who have suffered moral prejudice as a result of the human rights violation.161 The ACHPR supported the view that the victims should be determined on a case-by-case basis.162 The causal link between the wrongful act and the moral prejudice for these relatives163 can be presumed, without the need of proof. The ACHPR considers the particular harm experienced by the individual or collective without discrimination.164 The IACtHR has specifically made clear that there exists a presumption of harm in relation to first-line relatives of the victim of ED. It recognises that “this Court […] can presume a harm to the right to mental and moral integrity of direct family members of victims of certain violations of human rights by applying a presumption iuris tantum regarding mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, husbands and wives, and permanent companions.”171 It is therefore for 157 IACtHR, Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, Judgment, 22 September 2006, para. 157. 158 ACHPR, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa and Others v Democratic Republic of Congo, Communication 393/10, 18 June 2016, para. 152. 159 Ibid, para. 154. 160 ACHPR, Norbert Zongo et al. v. Burkina Faso, Application No. 013/2011, Judgment on Reparations, 5 June 2015. 161 Ibid, para. 46. 162 Ibid, para. 49. 163 Ibid, para. 55. 164 ACHPR, General Comment No. 4 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The Right to Redress for Victims of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment or Treatment (Article 5), 2017, para. 16. 165 HRC, Maria del Carmen Almeida de Quinteros v. Uruguay, Communication No. 107/1981, 21 July 1983, para. 14; Katombe L. Tshishimbi v. Zaire, Communication No. 542/1993, 25 March 1996, para. 5.5; Rosario Celis Laureano v. Peru, Communication No. 540/1993, 25 March 1996, para. 8.5; Jegatheeswara Sarma v. Sri Lanka, Communication No. 950/2000, 31 July 2003, para. 9.5; Louisa Bousroual v. Algeria, Communication No. 992/2001, 30 March 2006, para. 9.8. 166 HRC, Louisa Bousroual v. Algeria, Communication No. 992/2001, 30 March 2006, para. 9.8. 167 HRCt, Icic et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Communication No. 2028/2011, 30 March 2015, para. 9.7. 168 See ICPPED, Article 24(1): “For the purposes of this Convention, “victim” means the disappeared person and any individual who has suffered harm as the direct result of an enforced disappearance.” 169 WGEID Report, General Comment on the right to the truth in relation to enforced disappearances A/HRC/16/48 of 26 January 2011, para.4. 170 Report of the WGEID, A/HRC/22/45, 28 January 2013, paras. 51 and 52. 171 IACtHR, Gomes Lund and others (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, Judgment of 24 November 2010, para. 235. 30