Chapter 8 • International Legal Standards for the Protection of Persons Deprived of Their Liberty fours days after his arrest” and “subsequently kept interned under unacceptable sanitary conditions”.87 Article 10(1) was also violated in the case of Kalenga, where the author complained, in particular, that he was denied recreational facilities, occasionally deprived of food and not given medical assistance when needed.88 In the view of the Committee, articles 7 and 10(1) of the Covenant were violated in the Linton case following “the mock execution set up by prison warders and the denial of adequate medical care” to the author for the treatment of injuries sustained in an aborted escape attempt; the treatment was considered to be “cruel and inhuman”.89 ***** In the case against Malawi, already dealt with under subsections 2.3.2 and 4.2, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights held, moreover, that “the inability of prisoners to leave their cells for up to 14 hours at a time, lack of organised sports, lack of medical treatment, poor sanitary conditions and lack of access to visitors, post and reading material” were all violations of article 5 of the Charter.90 The Commission has also decided that to deny a detainee access to doctors while his health is deteriorating is a violation of article 16 of the African Charter, which guarantees to every individual “the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health” (art. 16(1)).91 Article 16 was also violated with regard to Ken Saro-Wiwa, whose health while in custody suffered to the point where his life was endangered; despite requests for hospital treatment made by a qualified prison doctor, such treatment was denied.92 The victim’s right to respect and dignity and his right to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment under article 5 were violated in a case where the person concerned had, in addition to having his legs and hands chained to the floor day and night, been refused permission to take a bath during his 147 days of detention; he had also been given food only twice daily and been kept in solitary confinement prior to his trial, in a cell meant for criminals.93 ***** 87 Communications Nos. 241 and 242/1987, F. Birindwa ci Birhashwirwa and E. Tshisekedi wa Malumba v. Zaire (Views adopted on 2 November 1989), in UN doc. GAOR, A/45/40 (vol. II), p. 84, para. 13(b). 88 Communication No. 326/1988, H. Kalenga v. Zambia (Views adopted on 27 July 1993), in UN doc. GAOR, A/48/40 (vol. II), p. 71, para. 6.5. 89 Communication No. 255/1987, C. Linton v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 22 October 1992), in UN doc. GAOR, A/48/40 (vol. II), p. 16, para. 8.5. 90 ACHPR, Krishna Achuthan and Amnesty International (on behalf of Aleke Banda and Orton and Vera Chirwa) v. Malawi, Communications Nos. 64/92, 68/92 and 78/92, decision adopted during the 16th session, October-November 1994, para. 34 of the text of the decision as published at http://www.up.ac.za/chr/. 91 ACHPR, Media Rights Agenda and Others v. Nigeria, Communications Nos. 105/93, 128/94, 130/94 and 152/96, decision adopted on 31 October 1998, para. 91 of the text of the decision as published at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/105-93_128-94_130-94_152-96.html. 92 ACHPR, International Pen and Others (on behalf of Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr. and Civil Liberties Organisation) v. Nigeria, Communications Nos. 137/94, 139/94, 154/96 and 161/97, decision adopted on 31 October 1998, para. 112 of the text of the decision as published at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/137-94_139-94_154-96_161-97.html. 93 ACHPR, Media Rights Agenda (on behalf of Niran Malaolu) v. Nigeria, Communication No. 224/98, decision adopted during the 28th session, 23 October – 6 November 2000, paras. 70 and 72 of the text of the decision as published at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/224-98.html. 344 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers