This point was emphasized in R ( Greenfield ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 14, where Lord Bingham noted that the focus of the Convention is on the protection of human rights and not the award of compensation. 39. Thus it is clear that the object of human rights instruments is the termination of human rights abuses and in cases where the abuse has already taken place, restoration of the rights in question. Compensation is awarded in order to ensure ‘just satisfaction’ and no more. It is not the object of human rights instruments, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on which this application is premised to award punitive damages against offenders of the instruments. This by no means deprives a successful human rights victim from claiming monetary compensation in appropriate cases, particularly where special damages are pleaded and proven at the trial. 40. With regard to general damages, the peculiar circumstances of this case would be taken into account. Plaintiff was arrested on 11 July 2006 and has since been detained. He has not been charged with any criminal offence and has not been put to trial before any court of competent jurisdiction. He has not even been told of the reason for his arrest. He has been held incommunicado. Plaintiff is a journalist who was working and living a normal life before he was arrested and detained. The Court considers an award of compensation to be justified in these circumstances. Decision 41. The Court has found that the applicant was arrested on 11 July 2006 by the police force of The Gambia and has since been detained incommunicado, and without being charged. He has not been told the reasons for his arrest, let alone the fact that it was in accord with a previously laid down law. The Court holds these acts clearly violate the provisions of articles 2, 6 and 7(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Furthermore, in view of the fact that these violations of applicant’s human rights were caused by the defendant, which refused to appear in Court, it entitles the applicant to damages. And the Court considers that this violation should be terminated and the dignity of the applicant’s person is to be restored. Costs 42. The plaintiff is adjudged to be entitled to the costs of this application to be borne by the defendant, as will be assessed, under and by virtue of article 66 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Reasons 43. For these reasons, the Community Court of Justice, sitting in public after hearing the applicant, in the absence of the defendant who refused to appear, in first and last resort, considering article 4(g) of the Revised Treaty, as well as articles 2, 6 and 7(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and also the Supplementary Protocol of the Court and the Court’s Rules of Procedure, declares this application to be admissible in human rights and the Court enters judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant, who is liable for this violation. Orders 44. Consequently, the Court orders:  That the Republic of The Gambia releases Chief Ebrimah Manneh, plaintiff herein from unlawful detention without any further delay upon being served with a copy of this judgment;   That the human rights of the plaintiff be restored, especially his freedom of movement;  The defendant to pay the costs of this action to be assessed. The Republic of The Gambia pay the plaintiff the sum of one hundred thousand United States Dollars (US$100 000) as damages;