African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights All the victims were arrested and kept in detention for a lengthy period under the State Security (Detention of Persons) Act of 1984 and State Security (Detention of Persons ) Amended Decree No. 14 (1994), that stipulates that the government can detain people without charge for as long as three months in the first instance. The decree also states that the courts cannot question any such detention or in any other way intervene on behalf of the detainees. This decree allows the government to arbitrarily hold people critical of the government for up to 3 months without having to explain themselves and without any opportunity for the complainant to challenge the arrest and detention before a court of law. The decree therefore prima facie violates the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained protected in Article 6 [of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights]. --International Pen, Constitutional Rights Project, Interights on behalf of Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr. and Civil Liberties Organisation case, Comm. No. 137/94, 139/94, 154/96 and 161/97, 12th Annual Activity report 1998 - 1999 (para. 83). ***** All parties agree that Mr. Mazou was held beyond the expiry of his sentence. No judgment was passed to extend his sentence. Therefore the detention was arbitrary, and the Commission finds that this constitutes a violation of Article 6…. Detention on the mere [suspicion] that an individual may cause problems is a violation of his right to be presumed innocent. --Annette Pagnoulle (on behalf of Abdoulaye Mazou) case, Comm. No. 39/90, 10th Annual Activity Report 1996 1997 (paras. 17, 21). D.2 Charges and right to be informed of the reasons for arrest United Nations The [Human Rights] Committee is concerned … that the periods of detention without charge under the [Offences Against the State] Act have been increased, that persons may be arrested on suspicion of being about to commit an offence, and that the majority of persons arrested are never charged with an offence. It is concerned that, in circumstances covered by the Act, failure to respond to questions may constitute evidence supporting the offence of belonging to a prohibited organization. The application of the Act raises problems of compatibility with articles 9 and 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant. --A/55/40, paras. 422-451 (2000). ***** 48