The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES although it acknowledged ‘the obvious danger that normal safeguards on the treatment of prisoners will be lacking’.217 e. Detention on Grounds of Mental Heath In Purohit and Moore,218 the complainants alleged that the mental health regime in The Gambia was dehumanizing and incompatible with Article 5 of the Charter. The Lunatics Detention Act of 1917 defined persons with mental health problems as ‘lunatics’ and ‘idiots’ and prescribed certification procedures that were not subject to oversight or effective mechanisms of control. The African Commission held that branding persons with mental illness as ‘lunatics’ and ‘idiots’ had the effect of dehumanizing them and denying them dignity contrary to Article 5 of the African Charter. The Commission explained its decisions as follows: In coming to this conclusion, the African Commission would like to draw inspiration from Principle 1(2) of the United Nations Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Care. Principle 1(2) requires that “all persons with mental illness, or who are being treated as such, shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” The African Commission maintains that mentally disabled persons would like to share the same hopes, dreams and goals and have the same rights to pursue those hopes, dreams and goals just like any other human beings. Like any other human being, mentally disabled persons or persons suffering from mental illness have a right to enjoy a decent life, as normal and full as possible, a right which lies at the heart of the right to human dignity. This right should be zealously guarded and forcefully protected by all States Party to the African Charter in accordance with the well established principle that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.219 It is the right to dignity, as such, and not the guarantee against torture or ill-treatment that underlies this finding. In the words of the Commission, human dignity is ‘an inherent basic right to which all human beings, regardless of their mental capabilities or disabilities as the case may be, are entitled to without discrimination’.220 However, the Commission rejected the argument that the ‘automatic’ detention of persons believed to be mentally ill or disabled, which effectively excludes the possibility of reviewing the diagnosis, violates the prohibition of ‘arbitrary’ detention. In the Commission’s view, persons who have been institutionalised are not included within the protective scope of Article 6, which deals with ‘liberty and security’ and prohibiting arbitrary arrest and detention.221 217 218 219 220 221 58 ACHPR, Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 151/96, 26th Ordinary Session (15 November 1999), para. 26. ACHPR, Purohit and Moore v. The Gambia, Comm. No. 240/2001. Ibid., paras. 59-60. Ibid., para. 57. In violation of Article 6 of the African Charter; see ibid., paras. 64-68. The ACHPR stated, ‘Article 6 of the African Charter was not intended to cater for situations where persons in need of medical assistance or help are institutionalized’, para. 68.