interest sought flow from the violation of human rights if the claims by the Applicants mentioned above succeeded. Question No.1 The case by the defendants is whether the case is statute barred pursuant to Article 9 (3) [sic] of the Supplementary Protocol of the Court; is the case statute barred or not? 28. While the Applicants indicated that the arrest of MT Capbreton took place at 16 nautical miles, the Defendants according to them maintained that this arrest took place at 14 nautical; on the other hand, the Applicants claimed they were carrying LPFO (Low Pour Fuel Oil) and not crude oil, that they were rendering assistance to another vessel in distress on the 17th of July 2003; that 10 of them were detained and tried in the Federal High Court of Nigeria in Lagos on the 1st of March 2004, date in which they were discharged, the Defendants on their own contended that the arrest tool place on the 16th of July 2003 and that based on the provisions of Article 9 (3) [sic] of the Supplementary Protocol, the case is statute barred and cannot be reopened before this court. It is Necessary to recall the provisions of Article 9 (3) [sic] of the Supplementary Protocol. 29. Pursuant to this Article 9 (3) of the Protocol, the actions founded on Human Rights violation shall not be brought after the expiration of three years from the date on which the cause of action occurred. The word used in the provision is "Shall" and the meaning is stated in Black Law Dictionary, Six Edition, page 1375 as follows: "As Used in statutes, contracts or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory. In common or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term "shall" is a word of command, and one which has always or which must be given a compulsory meaning as denoting obligation. The word in ordinary usage means "must" and is inconsistent with a concept of direction" 30. However, it is important to state that this provision only concerns cases against the Community or those of the Community against another; in this case, the action is between individuals (legal Entity) and a State Member of the Community and her agents. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the arguments of the Defendants aiming at declaring the action statute barred does not hold water and cannot prosper. It is therefore proper to reject the arguments of the Defendants. Question no.2 Was there unlawful detention of the applicants? 31. The Applicants contended that their detention for the period of 17th July 2003 to 30th November 2005 is unlawful and that as a result of this detention they suffered important damages for which they are seeking reparation: on one hand for the loss of their employment and on the other hand, for the seizure of their personal effects as well as the dispossession of their vessel and later the destruction of the vessel. They stated that these facts constitute their Human Rights violation pursuant to the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights cited above. 32. Indeed, the provisions of Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights adopted by the legislature in Nigeria as CAP, A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 provides that: "Every Individual shall have the Rights to liberty and to the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law, in particular no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained." 33. Also Article 17 × 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. 10