freedom of expression through its implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 law similar to its violation of the rights of many bloggers, journalists and activists in the country. According to the Complainants not only had the Respondent State violated their freedom of expression through the implementation of this law, but also the continued existence of the law created a chilling effect on their freedom of express that constitutes a continuing violation of the right. 156. According to the Complainants, Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 is defined in such a broad way that it goes beyond the laws of incitement and creates a truly novel and unprecedented legal principle that it is not foreseen by any other criminal laws. The Complainants submitted that the provision is so broad that it covers legitimate political or religious expression which should not and cannot be considered to be the encouragement of terrorism. 157. According to the Complainants, even if the Commission were to hold that Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 does not separately violate the freedom of expression, it has to be noted that this provision is applied in conjunction with Article 3 of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009, which is separately overboard. And according to the Complainants Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 should be found in violation of the African Charter both standing separately and when read in conjunction with Article 3 of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009. 158. According to the Complainants, additionally the law fails other test of the African Charter and other international treaties such as the requirement that terrorism laws should be limited to violent crimes; that expression should be penalized only where the author intends to incite terrorism, and expression should be penalized only where it is able to create an objective danger of inciting terrorist acts. Alleged violation of the liberty and Security of the Person (Article 6 of the African Charter) 159. The Complainants in their submissions have tackled the alleged violation of Article 6 of the African Charter under two heads namely: (i) Principle of legality and the limitation of rights; and (ii) Arbitrary arrest because of religious and political opinions. 160. Under the first head according to the Complainants the laws that define the crime under which they were arrested is so general or vague that their detention cannot be considered to be prescribed by law and that it was neither necessary nor proportionate. 161. Relying on the matters they articulated when arguing the alleged violation of Article 6 and 9(2) of the African Charter they submitted that their arrest and detention under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 should be declared arbitrary. Additionally, according to the Complainants, no person should face arrest and detention for activity that cannot and should not be regarded as unlawful let alone prosecuted under a counter terrorism law. Therefore, the Complainants submitted that irrespee~ whether the Commission declares a violation of the African Charter under tl'ie'ir)"'~o'~ "f :.c;_~ submissions when arguing the alleged violation of Article 6 and 9(2) the African ('~.~ Charter it should also declare that the Respondent State had violated I .l!' ticle 6 of the \.... \ African Charter under this head. \,~ l • ~a ~ ~. ~ pi ~::s-s, " (u'" ~ ~ I~ . 7()x,'" s./J \J ",,,~I(.~'I'<~ '~:..~' </<,§ f/