The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES separately amounted to torture or other ill-treatment. Instead, the Commission simply held that these acts together were in contravention of Article 5. Although later findings are more expansive and more rigorously substantiated, the depth of analysis could often be improved considerably. When the four forms of ill-treatment (‘torture’, ‘cruelty’, ‘inhumane treatment’ and ‘degradation’) are used disjunctively, at least to some extent, no clear categorisation or careful distinction is elaborated in the case-law. In John D. Ouko v. Kenya173, a distinction is drawn between ‘dignity and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment’ on the one hand, and ‘freedom from torture’ on the other. The established facts were as follows: the complainant was arrested and detained for ten months without trial in violation of Article 6 of the Charter. During the ten-month detention, a bright (250 watt) light bulb was left alight continuously, and the victim was denied bathroom facilities. In the Commission’s view, these conditions amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, but fell short of torture, and presumably also of ‘cruel’ treatment.174 Finding that the evidence revealed no specific instances of ‘physical and mental torture’, though such treatment was alleged in general terms, the Commission declined to conclude that the ‘right to freedom from torture’ was violated, but did find a violation of Article 5 without specifying the particular element involved.175 There is some contradiction in the Ouko case finding, however. In the paragraph before the Commission declines to find a violation of the right to be free from torture in Article 5, the Commission finds – on the same facts already stated – a violation of Principle 6 of the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.176 This principle stipulates that no detainee may be ‘subjected to torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Reading the finding as a whole, the inference must be drawn that Principle 6 was violated because of the presence of inhuman and degrading treatment, but not cruelty or torture. However, such an interpretation is by no means clear from the Commission’s reasoning. The Commission’s lack of clarity regarding the distinction between torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment can also be seen in subsequent cases. In Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Esmalia Connateh and 13 others) v. Angola, the Commission stated that the terms ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment…refer to any act ranging from denial of contact with one’s family and refusing to inform 173 174 175 176 50 ACHPR, John D. Ouko v. Kenya, Comm. No. 232/99, 28th Ordinary Session (6 November 2000). Ibid., para. 23. Ibid., para. 26. See Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, G.A. Res. 43/173, UN Doc. A/RES/43/173 (9 December 1988).