The requirement of lawfulness is not satisfied merely by compliance with the relevant domestic law; the application of domestic laws in a case of arrest and detention must itself be in conformity with the international provisions. An arrest done in conformity with the law is deemed lawful until such laws are repealed. In the instant case, though the arrest of the Applicants were carried out in accordance with the criminal laws of The Gambia, the continued detention of the Applicant constitutes a violation. In A and Others V. The United Kingdom (Application no. 3455/05) judgement 19th February 2009 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice held that: “The deprivation of liberty must also be “lawful”. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 (1) 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness. It is a fundamental principle that no detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 (1) 1 and the notion of “arbitrariness” in Article 5 (1) extends beyond lack of conformity with national law, so that a deprivation of liberty may be lawful in terms of domestic law but still arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention.” 45