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 19" February 2009 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice held that: “The deprivation of liberty must also be “lawful”. detention is in issue, including the question whether Where the “lawfulness” of “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.” Similarly, in MEDVEDYEV 3394/03) JUDGMENT AND STRASBOURG OTHERS vy. FRANCE (Application no. 29 March 2010, the Court reiterated that where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially 49