146. The Court also finds that the delay in the Applicant's appeal proceedings does not amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and treatment, as it does not meet the threshold of severity, intention, and severe humiliation required by the definitions established in jurisprudence.31 Moreover, the Court is of the view that the delay does not per se, constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment, even if it may have caused the Applicant mental anguish. The Court is fortified in its decision in this regard by the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee.32 VIII. The alleged Violation of the Right to Liberty and Security of the Person. 147. The relevant provision in this regard is Article 6 of the Charter which provides that everyone shall have the right to liberty and security of his person and that no one shall be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained. 148. The Applicant has contended that his arbitrary and continued detention caused by the delay in the hearing of his cases amounts to a violation of his right to liberty as provided by Article 6 of the Charter. 31 Price v United Kingdom, Judgment of 10 July 2001, paragraphs 24-30; Va/asinas v. Lithuania, Judgment of 24 July 2001, paragraph 117; and Pretty v United Kingdom, Judgment of 29 April 2002, paragraph 52. 32 Communications 210/1986 & 225/1987, Earl Pratt & Ivan Morgan v Jamaica CCPR/C/35/D/210/1986; CCPR/C/35/D/225/1987, 7 April 1989. 59