referring to its Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial, the Commission notes that Article 6 includes the right of the individual to be informed about the reasons for his arrest and charges preferred against him at the time of the individual’s arrest.8 The Commission applied the afore-mentioned Principles in its decision in Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan, where the arrest and detention lacked legal basis.9 In this case, the facts alleged by the Complainants are a violation of their rights to liberty and to the security of their persons. 66. Regarding Article 7(1)(a), the Commission recalls that the possibility of a detained person to question the legality and the duration of his detention before a court is fundamental to the enjoyment of the right to a fair trial. This possibility is established by the Commission in its decision Purohit and another v. The Gambia.10 It emerges from the consideration of the facts of the case, that during the entire period of their preventive detention, the Complainants did not have the opportunity to refer the matter to a judge to contest the legality and the duration of the afore-mentioned detention. 67. Article 7(1) (a) of the Charter also includes the right to an appeal against a judicial decision. The Commission has ample jurisprudence on the right to appeal, in particular, concerning cases involving military courts and/or where the death penalty is enforced. The consistent principle adopted is that the military courts do not enjoy any exception regarding rights to a fair trial.11 The right to appeal, particularly in the event of the death penalty being invoked, is also established by the Commission in the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial.12 In the case in point, the provisions of Article 5 of the Decree-Law establishing the military court did not provide for any such appeal or opposition. 68. Still on the issue of violation of Article 7(1)(a), the Commission is of the opinion that the right protected by this provision makes it mandatory for the courts to assign reasons for their judgments. Such an obligation is clearly highlighted in the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair African Commission ‘Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa’ (2001) Principles M(2)(a). 9 Op. cit. para 49. 10 Communication 241/01 (2003) RADH 98 (CADHP 2003) para 72. See also, Zegveld and another v. Eritrea Communication 250/02 (2003) RADH 85 (CADHP 2003) para 56. 11 Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan Communication 222/98 and 229/99 (2003) RADH 142 (ACHPR 2003) para 53 ; Women’s Legal Aid Centre (on behalf of Moto) v. Tanzania Communication 243/01 (2004) RADH 120 ACHPR 2004) para 47 ; Civil Liberties Organisations and others v. Nigeria (2001) RADH 80 (ACHPR 2001) para 32-34. 12 Principles A(2)(j), N(10). 8 13