GUZZARDI v. ITALY JUDGMENT 35 Winterwerp judgment, pp. 17-18, par. 39-40). In addition, problems might have arisen in connection with paragraph 3 of Article 5 (art. 5-3), which has to be read together with paragraph 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c) (see the abovementioned Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment, p. 75, par. 199), and even with Article 18 (art. 18). At first sight, a more likely hypothesis is that the measure complained of was taken because it was "reasonably considered necessary to prevent [Mr. Guzzardi’s] committing an offence" or, at the outside, "fleeing after having done so". However, in that case as well a question would arise as to the measure’s "lawfulness" since, solely on the basis of the 1956 and 1965 Acts, an order for compulsory residence as such, leaving aside the manner of its implementation, does not constitute deprivation of liberty (see paragraph 94 above). It would also be necessary to consider whether the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 5 (art. 5-3) had been observed (see the Lawless judgment of 1 July 1961, Series A no. 3, pp. 51-53, par. 13-14). In any event, the phrase under examination is not adapted to a policy of general prevention directed against an individual or a category of individuals who, like mafiosi, present a danger on account of their continuing propensity to crime; it does no more than afford the Contracting States a means of preventing a concrete and specific offence. This can be seen both from the use of the singular ("an offence", "celle-ci" in the French text; see the Matznetter judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, pp. 40 and 43, separate opinions of Mr. Balladore Pallieri and Mr. Zekia) and from the object of Article 5 (art. 5), namely to ensure that no one should be dispossessed of his liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see the above-mentioned Winterwerp judgment, p. 16, par. 37). 103. Finally, sub-paragraphs (d) and (f) of Article 5 par. 1 (art. 5-1-d, art. 5-1-f) are obviously not relevant. (c) Conclusion 104. To sum up, from 8 February 1975 to 22 July 1976 the applicant was the victim of a breach of Article 5 par. 1 (art. 5-1). C. The other alleged violations 1. Preliminary observation 105. The Commission’s report stated that, as regards Articles 3, 6, 8 and 9 (art. 3, art. 6, art. 8, art. 9), there was no foundation for the applicant’s allegations. According to the Government, it followed that the Court’s task was confined to determining the issues under Article 5 (art. 5) (see paragraphs 4