149. The Respondent on its part, maintains that it has not violated the Applicant's right to liberty. The Respondent states that the right to liberty is not absolute and can be curtailed under conditions laid down by the law, which in the Respondent's case, the law in this regard is the Criminal Procedure Act. The Respondent asserts that, the Applicant was arrested, arraigned in Court, prosecuted and convicted in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act and the Penal Code. The Respondent maintains that the Applicant cannot therefore contend that his arrest and detention were arbitrary and unlawful and that his allegations on the violations of Article 6 are unfounded, baseless and without merit. 150. The Court's finding that there is an undue delay in the hearing of the Applicant's appeal at the Court of Appeal does not necessarily mean that there has been a violation of the right to liberty and security of the person. This may be so where the Court finds that there has been such a flagrant denial of justice that the resulting imprisonment of an Applicant would be incompatible with the provisions of Article 6 of the Charter. In the instant Application, the Applicant was tried and convicted by a legally constituted Court, which passed a sentence against the Applicant based on domestic law, therefore his imprisonment was being carried out pursuant to the court's order. This Court therefore finds that the undue delay in the hearing of the Applicant's appeal did not result in a violation of the right to liberty and security of his person. 60 · ··