000e12 language used in the Application, the nature of evidence adduced, and the previous settlement of the case, respectively, is not in contention. 58. Noting further that the pleadings do not indicate otherwise, the Court holds that the Application meets the requirements set out under those provisions. 59. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Application fulfils all the admissibility requirements set out under Article 56 of the Charter as restated in Rule 40 of the Rules and accordingry decrares it admissibre. VII. MERITS 60. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his rights to residence, freedom of movement, dignity and to be tried within a reasonable time. A. Alleged violation of the rights to residence and freedom of movement 61' The Applicant avers that his right to freedom of movement was violated because he was arrested and detained while legally staying on the territory of the Respondent State. ln support of this submission, the Applicant first contends that the Respondent State's admission that his visa was severally efiended confirms his laMulstay. 62. The Applicant further alleges that the Respondent state,s arguments are contradictory in the sense that, on the one hand, it qualifies him as an illegal immigrant but, on the other hand, it withdrew criminal case No. 7gs of 2006 against him and his family, and allowed him to stay on humanitarian grounds for the purpose of pursuing his case. lt is the Applicant's contention that the absence of evidence on file to support the hypothesis of a discretionary authorisation by the Minister of Home Affairs to reside for almost seven (7) years without proper documentation should only lead to the conclusion that he was residing legally in the country at the time of his arrest. Y' 1,1 \-v t6 a J