State claims that these occurred because, “the stated newspapers and the leading editors were recruited into the illegal network organised for the purpose of ousting the Government through illegal and unconstitutional means.” 90. Eritrea’s argument, then, is that its actions were justified by the circumstances prevailing within its territory during the relevant period, and permissible under its domestic law. Reference is made to Articles 6 and 9 of the African Charter, the relevant sections of which provide respectively that: No-one may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law; and Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law. [Emphasis added] 91. Such provisions of the Charter are sometimes referred to as “claw-back clauses,” because if “law” is interpreted to mean any domestic law regardless of its effect, States Parties to the Charter would be able to negate the rights conferred upon individuals by the Charter. 92. However, the Commission’s jurisprudence has interpreted the so-called claw-back clauses as constituting a reference to international law, meaning that only restrictions on rights which are consistent with the Charter and with States Parties’ international obligations should be enacted by the 25 relevant national authorities. The lawfulness of Eritrea’s actions must therefore be considered against the Charter and other norms of international law, rather than by reference to its own domestic 24 laws alone. 93. The arrest and detention of the journalists and political opponents is claimed by the Complainant to breach Articles 6 and 7 of the Charter. Article 6 provides that “no-one shall be arbitrarily arrested or detained.” The concept of arbitrary detention is one which both the [African] Commission and other international human rights bodies have previously expounded upon. In 25 the Albert Mukong Case, the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated that, Arbitrariness is not to be equated with ‘against the law’ but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law…remand in custody pursuant to lawful arrest must not only be lawful but reasonable in all the circumstances…remand in custody must also be necessary in all the circumstances. From this case it can be inferred that an arrest or detention may be legal according to the letter of domestic law, but arbitrary and therefore illegal by reason of its inappropriate, unjust or unpredictable nature. 94. The Eritrean detainees have not been charged, or brought to trial. This in itself constitutes 26 arbitrariness, as the [African] Commission has previously stated. In communication 102/93, 97. The question of what is reasonable cannot be expressed in terms of a blanket time limit which will apply in all cases, but rather must depend on the circumstances. This approach has also been espoused by the European Court of Human Rights, which has held that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed in accordance with all the circumstances of a case. The European Court will look in particular at the complexity of the case, and the conduct of the applicant 28 and of the relevant authorities. 98. Eritrea contends that the delay in bringing these particular detainees to trial is due to the complexity and gravity of the offences committed, and to the “precarious war situation” existing within the state. However, as already stated, it must be borne in mind that States Parties cannot derogate from the Charter in times of war or any other emergency situation. Even if it is assumed that the restriction placed by the Charter on the ability to derogate goes against international principles, there are certain rights such as the right to life, the right to a fair trial, and the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, that cannot be derogated from for any reason, in whatever circumstances. 99. The existence of war in Eritrea cannot therefore be used to justify excessive delay in bringing the detainees to trial. Furthermore, a backlog of cases awaiting trial cannot excuse unreasonable delays, 29 as the European Court of Human Rights has held. Further, in the case of Albert Mukong, referred to above, the Human Rights Committee stated that States Parties to the ICCPR must observe certain minimum standards as regards the condition of detention, regardless of their state of development.