informed of the reasons for his arrest. The Complainants further state that the Victim was detained for over 23 months without being informed of the reasons of his arrest and detention, and without ever being charged with an offence. This according to the Complainants, constitutes an arbitrary arrest and detention in violation of Article 6 of the African Charter and the Constitution of Uganda which established that " a person arrested or detained ... upon reasonable suspicion of his or her having committed or being about to commit a criminal offence under the laws of Uganda, shall, if not earlier released, be brought to court as soon as possible, but in any case not later than 48 hrs from the time of his or either arrest". The Complainants also referred to the decision of the European Court which held that an arrest must be based on "reasonable suspicion" 40. 134. The Complainants in interpreting the notion of arbitrarily arrest, referred to the decision of the , Commfasion where it clarified that arbitrariness is not to be equated wfrh "against the law" but must be interpreted more broadly to include elelllents of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law" 41 . The Complainants also referred to the Commission's jurisprudence where it recognised the right of individuals to be informed of reasons for tJ.,.eir arrest4 2 and where individuals have been detaine.d without charges being brought, constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of article 6 of the African Charter43. The Complainants therefore submit that the detention of the Victim from 7 June 2005 to 3 May 2007, constitutes a breach of the Victim's rights44, 135.Furthermore, the Complainants. aver that the Victim's rights in Article 6 and 7 of the African Charter were violated in that he was held incommunicado for over 23 months, during which period he was denied contact with a lawyer and with his family. The Complainants state that the Commission • has held that "Incommunicado detention is a gross human rights violation that can lead to other violations such as torture or ill-treatment or interrogation without due process safeguards. . .. There 40 See Application 70279/01, Gusinkiy v Russia, European Court on Human Rights, at para 53 41 Communication 275.2003, Article 19 v Eritrea, at para 93. 42 Communication 224/98, Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria, at para 83-86. Communication 143/95 and 150/96, Constitutional Rights Project and Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria, at para 55. 44 The Complainants request the Commission to note that those additional detention periods detailed above do not form part of the index application and will form the basis of a fresh Communication to the Commission in due course. Nonetheless those periods of additional detention highly relevant to the indexed circumstances, tending to suggest a sustained c N i;> . conduct in targeting the Victim, as well as a pattern of failures to respect t ,"'\,P~q_nnsr;;"' <11, ,:. ""<1 0 fundamental rights. o'"' ;- ~ 43 d" (?) \. . ''\,r \ AU.u~ J t' <- u.,, q ------~-"'".IF "" <if +o¾:-.;.,.~ICA!ftt \)l</"~· "-ETl!)ESII'~