activities, it should have charged him and brought him to trial. He claims that he never was a member of the Workers' Party of Kurdistan, that the restrictions were placed upon him for internal political reasons and that he never was given the opportunity to challenge the reasons underlying the restriction order. movement may lawfully be restricted for reasons of national security without allowing appeal against such decision, the State party notes that article 12 does not contain a right to appeal against a decision restricting a person's liberty of movement. 7.4 In the present case, the State party submits that, although the author did not have a possibility of a formal appeal against the decision, the decision was in fact open to review. In this context, the State party recalls that the author was sentenced on several occasions for not complying with the restriction order and argues that in order to convict a person and sentence him, the court has to examine whether the restrictions were imposed in accordance with domestic law and assess whether they were imposed on reasonable grounds. The State party furthermore indicates that, according to domestic law, the expulsion order, on which the restriction order was based, had to be reconsidered by the Government whenever there was cause to do so. In this context, the State party emphasizes that the restrictions on the author's freedom of movement were reviewed several times, resulting in their complete abolishment on 11 October 1990. Examination of the merits 9.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes that the author's expulsion was ordered on 10 December 1984, but that this order was not enforced and that the author was allowed to stay in Sweden, subject to restrictions on his freedom of movement. The Committee is of the view that following the expulsion order, the author was lawfully in the territory of Sweden, for purposes of article 12, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, only under the restrictions placed upon him by the State party. Moreover, bearing in mind that the State party has invoked reasons of national security to justify the restrictions on the author's freedom of movement, the Committee finds that the restrictions to which the author was subjected were compatible with those allowed pursuant to article 12, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. In this connection, the Committee also notes that the State party motu proprio reviewed said restrictions and ultimately lifted them. 7.5 The State party further invokes compelling reasons of national security, which made it necessary to restrict the author's freedom of movement without providing a possibility of appeal and refers in this context to article 13 of the Covenant, which allows an exception, when compelling reasons of national security so require, to the provision that a decision of expulsion be subjected to review. It concludes, taking into account that it in fact did review the restrictions on the author's freedom of movement several times, that article 12 has not been violated in Mr. Celepli's case. 10. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it do not reveal a violation by the State party of any of the articles of the Covenant. 8. In his comments, dated 30 December 1993, the author emphasizes that if the State party had grounds to suspect him of criminal or terrorist Communication No. 458/1991 Submitted by: Albert Womah Mukong on 26 February 1991 (represented by counsel) Alleged victim: The author State party: Cameroon Declared admissible: 8 July 1992 (forty-fifth session) Date of adoption of Views: 21 July 1994 (fifty-first session) Substantive issues: Conditions of detention – Incommunicado detention – Torture and illtreatment – Right to a fair trial – Permissible restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression – Liberty and security of the person – Freedom of movement Subject matter: Persecution and harassment of journalist for political activities by State party’s authorities Procedural issues: Exhaustion of effective remedies – Burden of proof 86