162. Under the second head, according to the Complainants, their arrest and continued detention constitutes an arbitrary arrest violating Article 6 of the African Charter and they were detained and prosecuted by the Respondent State in the process of its violation of their freedom of religion. 163. According to the Complainants, the Respondent State had set out to persecute what it considered to followers of sects and movements it described as "Salafi", "Wahabi", or "Ikhwan" and they were detained in the process of protesting against this move. And according to the Complainants since the Respondent State had consistently labelled those who opposed its measures and protested against it as members of this sect they submitted that their arrest by definition constitutes arbitrary arrest. 164. According to the Complainants, irrespective of their beliefs, it was clear that they were detained primarily for peacefully opposing the Respondent State's Ahbashization project. Further that the Complainants were also detained for their belief in and advocacy for secularism as well as for either or both their alleged religious sect and for their political beliefs. Alleged violation of the right to humane treatment in the process of arrest (Article 5 and 6 of the African Charter) 165. The Complainants in their submissions have tackled the alleged violation of Articles 5 and 6 of the African Charter under three heads namely: (i) Right not to be arbitrarily arrested without an arrest warrant or judicial oversight; (ii) Right to be informed of procedural rights and the reason of arrest; and (iii) Right against arbitrary and illegal detention beyond legal boundaries. 166. Under the first head according to the Complainants the circumstances under which the Respondent State arrested and detained them violated their right to humane treatment and thus violated Articles 5 and 6 of the African Charter. In this regard according to the Complainants all the Complainants, except one of them was severely beaten and assaulted by the arresting the police officers even though the Complainants had not resisted arrest. 167. The Complainants also submitted that their case is not one in which they were arrested while a crime was in progress (flagrant delicto") and neither was it one in hot pursuit. They also submitted that their arrest without a warrant was illegal on its own merit as there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause for their arrest. 168. The Complaints submitted that the Conunission had not clarified its opinion or set in detail standard under the African Charter regarding what circumstances allow signatories of the African Charter to effect arrest without warrant, the spirit of its declaration in Article M (1) (b) of the Principles and Guidelineson Fair Trial and its case law suggests that such a blank license to arrest is not allowed. And that, in this regard, the Commission is requested to clarify the applicable standards under Article-e-e African Charter. They also requested the Commission to declare that Articlel9(l) €>£'1th€'f"~" Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 is in violation of Article 6 oj the African <"'J" Charter and also that the Respondent State be ordered to revoke this :Evision so that ... 7__ o 'C I u ~ \4. ... ~.\) <.)', ,,~s /0 _." ~'" ~ s'(J'V olt 2.5 ",,'" ~ Q.... ~"RIC~''"c- (/<~/f.. ~, . ,.c "'OMME E' ~ /,- .: . 1 _:::;::;;-