000911 63. The Applicant consequently submits that the absence of proper documents was the result of their loss, which he diligently reported to the Tanzanian police and was issued a certificate of loss in that regard. 64. ln his Application and subsequent submissions, the Applicant contends that the lmmigration Services "in complicity with lawyers from the Office of the Attorney Generaland the presiding Judge in civil case 119 of zo07,', decided to deport him so that he would not be able to continue with the judicial proceedings he had initiated. However, in his Reply, he states that he no longer wishes to argue violations based on this claim and his initial claim that his documents were torn by agents of the Respondent State. 65. On its part, the Respondent State submits that the right to freedom of movement is subject to limitations provided by law, which it has duly observed in the instant case. The argument of the Respondent state in this respect is two-fold. 66. First, the Respondent State avers that it acted "in accordance with the taw" as prescribed under Article 12(1) of the Charter by following the relevant provisions of its constitution and lmmigration Act, which prescribe respectively that: "No person shall be arrested, imprisoned, confirmed, detained, deported or otherwise be deprived of his freedom save only a) under circumstances and in accordance with procedures prescribed by law; or b) in the execution of a judgment, ...,,(Article 15(2) of the Constitution); 'Any immigration officer may, without warrant, arrest a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a prohibited immigrant or to have contravened ... any of the provisions of this Act,,. (Section g(1) of the lmmigration Act); iii. "The expression 'prohibited immigrant, means a person whose presence ... into Tanzania is unlaMul under any law for the time being in force". (Section 10(1Xh) of the tmmigration Act); 17 C cf