CCPR/C/114/D/1902/2009 to have the video recordings made by the police during their intervention included as evidence was refused. However, the Committee considers that, in the absence of any further information from the author, such alleged procedural shortcomings do not establish, in themselves, that the courts were not independent and impartial. Accordingly, the Committee considers this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, as it is insufficiently substantiated. 6.7 Finally, the Committee considers that the author’s remaining claims, which raise issues relating to articles 9 (2), 19 (1) and (2), and 21 of the Covenant, have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares those claims admissible and proceeds with the examination of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes, first of all, the author’s claim under article 9 of the Covenant that his administrative apprehension, which lasted 6 hours and 30 minutes, was never recorded. The State party submitted that the author’s apprehension was lawful and that it was aimed at stopping the meeting which was not authorized by the local authorities, identifying the participants and preparing an official record against them. The Committee notes that the State party has not refuted the author’s specific claim that his apprehension was not recorded. The Committee recalls that an arrest or detention may be authorized by domestic law and nonetheless be arbitrary. The notion of “arbitrariness” is not to be equated with being against the law, but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law5, as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality. 6 The Committee notes that the State party failed to demonstrate that the grounds for the author’s apprehension, namely, participation in a meeting held by a political party in private premises, were lawful, necessary and proportionate for the purposes of article 9 of the Covenant. In particular, the State party has not explained why it was necessary to detain the author after he had been identified and after the preparation of an official record. The Committee further notes that a person must not be arbitrarily detained because of the exercise of his freedom of expression.7 Accordingly, in the circumstances described above, and in the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author’s rights under article 9 of the Covenant have been violated. 7.3 The second issue before the Committee is whether preventing the author from participating in a meeting organized by a political party in the building where said party’s office is located, and apprehending and sentencing the author to an administrative fine constitutes a violation of the author’s rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant. 7.4 In that respect, the Committee recalls that article 19 (2) of the Covenant requires States parties to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print. The Committee refers to its general comment No. 34 (2011) on freedoms of opinion and expression, according to which, freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person. They are 5 6 7 6 Communications No. 1134/2002, Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 17 March 2005, para. 5.1; No. 305/1988, Van Alphen v. Netherlands, Views adopted on 23 July 1990, para. 5.8. General comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 12. General comment No. 34 (2011) on freedoms of opinion and expression, para. 23.