Charter,615 and limited application of such laws will not constitute an excuse; “To deny a fundamental right to a few is just as much a violation as denying it to many.”616 Given the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and other illtreatment, it is clear that any purported restriction of the rights under Article 5 of the ACHPR, or of the procedural guarantees necessary to ensure these rights, would be in violation of the Charter. The African Regional System 4 Amnesties for torture or other serious violations of human rights are contrary to the prevention of impunity and the victim’s right to an effective remedy, and are therefore absolutely prohibited in the African system.617 Furthermore, as in other jurisdictions, a change of government will not extinguish responsibility for past abuses, including the duty to provide reparation.618 4.3.2 Lawful sanctions Article 5 of the ACHPR contains no explicit exceptions, but it is clear that the Commission considers that there are circumstances under which treatment which would otherwise be prohibited may be justified. 4.3.2.1 The death penalty Article 4 of the ACHPR reads: “Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right.” While no express reference is made to the death penalty, it is clear that the Commission does not consider its application following a fair trial to violate Article 4,619 although in case of procedural irregularities, imposition of the See, for example: Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria (2000), op. cit., §75; Jawara v The Gambia, AfrCommHPR, Communication Nos. 147/1995 and 149/1996, 27th session, 27 April–11 May 2000, §59; Article 19 v Eritrea (2007), op. cit., §90–92; Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006), op. cit., §190. 616 Constitutional Rights Project and Civil Liberties Organisation v Nigeria (1999), op. cit., §32. This is in sharp contrast to the Commission’s views as regards State responsibility for violations by private actors. See section 4.2.1, above. 617 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006), op. cit., especially at §211, 215. The Commission made extensive reference to international and regional jurisprudence in reaching this conclusion. See also Robben Island Guidelines, op. cit., §16. 618 Achutan (on behalf of Banda) and Amnesty International (on behalf of Orton and Vera Chirwa) v Malawi, AfrCommHPR, Communication Nos. 64/1992, 68/1992, and 78/1992, 18th session, 2–11 October 1995, §12. 619 In 1999, the Commission adopted a resolution calling on States Parties to consider a moratorium on the death penalty, or to apply it only for the most serious crimes. It is therefore clear that the Commission does not consider the penalty in itself to violate either Article 4 or Article 615 138