is prima facie unlawful. Consequently, the person arresting and detaining another must establish that his actions are authorized by law. In Minister of Law and Order & Ors v Hurley & Anor 1986 (3) SA 568 (A), the court stated as follows: “An arrest constitutes an interference with the liberty of the individual concerned, and it therefore seems to be fair and just to require that the person who arrested or caused the arrest of another person should bear the onus of proving that his action was justified in law.” 9.5.1.3 In this complaint, Inspector Dhowa did not offer any justification for the detention of the complainant in a place that is not legally recognized as a detention place. It is not in dispute that complainant was detained for 3 days. What is in dispute is the reason for the detention. Complainant stated that he was at 4th Respondent’s home for 3 days where he was kept as a prisoner. However, the 3rd and 4th Respondents indicate that they kept complainant at 4th Respondent’s home for safety reasons. This however does not justify the detention as the 3 rd and 4th Respondents knew that complainant was wanted by the police on arson charges. The only reasonable thing that they ought to have done was to hand the complainant over to the police. The ZHRC therefore finds that the detention was unlawful and on that basis, complainant’s right to personal liberty was violated. 10. Whether complainant was subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment? 10.1 Section 53 of the Constitution provides that no person may be subjected to physical or psychological torture or to cruel, inhuman and degrading 14 | P a g e