It transpires from the file that these requirements were not met during the author's detention in the summer of 1988 and in February/March 1990. article 19 must cumulatively meet the following conditions: it must be provided for by law, it must address one of the aims enumerated in paragraphs 3 (a) and (b) of article 19 and it must be necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose. The State party has indirectly justified its actions on grounds of national security and/or public order by arguing that the author's right to freedom of expression was exercised without regard to the country's political context and continued struggle for unity. While the State party has indicated that the restrictions on the author's freedom of expression were provided for by law, it must still be determined whether the measures taken against the author were necessary for the safeguard of national security and/or public order. The Committee considers that it was not necessary to safeguard an alleged vulnerable state of national unity by subjecting the author to arrest, continued detention and treatment in violation of article 7. It further considers that the legitimate objective of safeguarding and indeed strengthening national unity under difficult political circumstances cannot be achieved by attempting to muzzle advocacy of multi-party democracy, democratic tenets and human rights. In this regard, the question of deciding which measures might meet the "necessity" test in such situations does not arise. In the circumstances of the author's case, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 19 of the Covenant. 9.4 The Committee further notes that quite apart from the general conditions of detention, the author has been singled out for exceptionally harsh and degrading treatment. Thus, he was kept detained incommunicado, was threatened with torture and death and intimidated, deprived of food, and kept locked in his cell for several days on end without the possibility of recreation. In this context, the Committee recalls its general comment 20 (44) which recommends that States parties should make provision against incommunicado detention and notes that total isolation of a detained or imprisoned person may amount to acts prohibited by article 7.4 In view of the above, the Committee finds that Mr. Mukong has been subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 9.5 The author has claimed a violation of article 14, although in the first case (1988-1989), the charges against him were withdrawn, and in the second case (1990), he was acquitted. It is implicit in the State party's submission that in the light of these events, it considers the complaint under article 14 moot. The Committee notes that in the first case, it was the Assistant Minister of Defence and thus a government official who ordered the closure of the proceedings against the author on 4 May 1989. In the second case, the author was formally acquitted. However, although there is evidence that government officials intervened in the proceedings in the first case, it cannot be said that the author's rights under article 14 were not respected. Similar considerations apply to the second case. The author has also claimed, and the State party refuted, a violation of article 14, paragraphs 3 (a) and (b). The Committee has carefully examined the material provided provided by the parties and concludes that in the instant case, the author's right to a fair trial has not been violated. 9.6 The author has claimed a violation of his right to freedom of expression and opinion, as he was persecuted for his advocacy of multi-party democracy and the expression of opinions inimical to the Government of the State party. The State party has replied that restrictions on the author's freedom of expression were justified under the terms of article 19, paragraph 3. 9.8 The Committee notes that the State party has dismissed the author's claim under article 9 by indicating that he was arrested and detained in application of the rules of criminal procedure, and that the police detention and preliminary enquiries by the examining magistrate were compatible with article 9. It remains however to be determined whether other factors may render an otherwise lawful arrest and lawful detention "arbitrary" within the meaning of article 9. The drafting history of article 9, paragraph 1, confirms that "arbitrariness" is not to be equated with "against the law", but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law. As the Committee has observed on a previous occasion, this means that remand in custody pursuant to lawful arrest must not only be lawful but reasonable in all the circumstances.5 Remand in custody must further be necessary in all the circumstances, for example, to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime. In the present case, the State party has not shown that any of these factors was present. It has merely contended that the author's 9.7 Under article 19, everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. Any restriction of the freedom of expression pursuant to paragraph 3 of 5 Ibid., Forty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/45/40), annex IX.M, communication No. 305/1988 (Hugo van Alphen v. the Netherlands), Views adopted on 23 July 1990, para. 5.8. 4 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortyseventh Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/47/40), annex VI.A, general comment 20 (44). 93