the State in question to disprove the presumption that these direct family members suffered harm as a result of the ED. Freedom from arbitrary detention and arrest The right to liberty and prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention is enshrined in all international human rights instruments. As ED usually starts with the arrest of the victim, followed by his/her incommunicado detention, it constitutes a clear violation of the right to liberty. In its jurisprudence, the IACtHR has adopted the broadest approach to this principle, considering that the children and siblings of disappeared persons, who were not born when the disappearance occurred, may be considered victims of ED. In the Gudiel Alvarez case, the Court stated that, “the fact that they had to live in an environment of suffering and uncertainty owing to the failure to determine the whereabouts of the disappeared victims prejudiced the integrity of the children who were born and lived in this situation.”172 This right is enshrined in Article 6 of the African Charter.177 In the case of Malawi Africa Association v. Mauritania, the ACHPR held that the detention of hundreds of people without charge or trial, the fate of many of whom remained unknown, constituted a “massive violation of Article 6”. 178 Further, while the IACtHR will not extend the presumption of harm beyond direct family members, it is possible for others to prove that they have suffered harm as the result of the ED of the victim.173 The ECOWAS Court has also recognised violations of Article 6 of the African Charter in an ED Context. In Chief Ebrimah Manneh v. The Republic of The Gambia, a reporter was arrested by plain clothed state police at his place of work.179 The individual was not told which law his arrest related to, was held incommunicado and was never formally tried with any offence.180 The court held that this was clearly “contrary to the rules enshrined in Article 6”.181 The court indicated that the text of Article 6 suggests a presumption of innocence in favour of liberty of the individual.182 Therefore any deprivation needs to be constrained by reasons and conditions laid down by law.183 The jurisprudence of the ECtHR also indicates that relatives of disappeared persons may themselves be victims of a violation of Article 3 of the ECtHR. For instance, in Kurt v. Turkey, the Court found that the mother of the victim had been “left with the anguish of knowing that her son has been detained and there was a complete absence of official information as to his subsequent fate. His [the detainee’s] anguish has endured over a prolonged period of time.”174 In assessing the potential violation, the ECtHR considered the proximity of the family relationship, the circumstances of the relationship, the extent to which the relative witnessed the events in question, and the involvement of the family member in attempts to obtain information on the disappearance.175 However, the ECtHR has found that family members born after the ED of their relatives do not fall within the threshold of Article 3, in contrast with the IACtHR.176 The HRCt case law on ED in Algeria has consistently established a violation of Article 9 of the ICCPR (Liberty and Security of Person). In Khirani v. Algeria, the Committee relied on the fact that the victim “was arrested without a warrant and without being informed of the reasons for his arrest; that he was at no point informed of the criminal charges against him; that he was not brought before a judge or other judicial authority to challenge the legality of his detention, which remains indefinite” to find a violation of Article 9.184 172 IACtHR, Gudiel Álvarez (“Military Journal”) v. Guatemala, Series C No. 253, 20 November 2012, para. 287; Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, Series C No. 232, 31 August 2011, para. 122 173 IACtHR, Gomes Lund and others (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, supra note 171, para. 235. 174 ECtHR, Kurt v. Turkey, Appl. No. 15/1997/799/1002, 25 May 1998, para. 133. 175 ECtHR, Ipek v. Turkey, para. 181; Osmanoglu v. Turkey, App. No. 48804/99, 24 January 2008, para. 96; Sangariyeva and Others v. Russia, App. No.1839/04, 29 May 2008, para. 90. 176 IACtHR, Gudiel Álvarez (“Military Journal”) v. Guatemala, Series C No. 253, 20 November 2012, para. 287 177 African Charter, supra note 131, Article 6: “Every individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of the person. No one may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained.” 178 ACHPR, Malawi Africa Association v Mauritania, Communications 54/91-61/91-96/93-98/93-164/97_196/97-210/98, 11 May 2000, para. 114. 179 ECOWAS Court, Chief Ebrimah Manneh v The Republic of The Gambia, Judgment ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/08, 5 June 2008, para 18. 180 ECOWAS Court, Chief Ebrimah Manneh v The Republic of The Gambia, supra note 179, para 19. 181 ECOWAS Court, Chief Ebrimah Manneh v The Republic of The Gambia, supra note 179, para 23. 182 ECOWAS Court, Chief Ebrimah Manneh v The Republic of The Gambia, supra note 179, para 26. 183 ECOWAS Court, Chief Ebrimah Manneh v The Republic of The Gambia, supra note 179, para 27. 184 HRCt, Khirani (on behalf of Ouaghlissi and ors) v Algeria, Communication 1905/2009, 26 March 2012, para. 7.7. 31