African Commission in Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, where it stated that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, essential to an individual personal development, political consciousness and participation in the public affairs of a country.103 247. In view of the fact that political leaders are most often sensitive to expression of opinions that are related to the political affairs of the State, the African Commission stated in the Kenneth Good v the Republic of Botswana that "A higher degree of tolerance is expected when it is a political speech and an even higher threshold is required when it is directed towards the government and government officials."104 The Declaration also requires public figures "to tolerate a greater degree of criticism,"105 to promote transparency and accountability as tenets of good governance. 248. The African Commission noted in the Kenneth Good v the Republic of Botswana that freedom of expression is not an absolute right, and can only be restricted for the reasons mentioned under Principles I(1) and II of the Declaration. That is, if the restrictions serve a legitimate interest and necessary in a democratic society.106 249. Freedom of expression can also been limited by the clawback clause under Article 9(2) in the context of the phrase 'within the law.' In Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania,107 the African Commission stated that "the expression 'within the law' must be interpreted in reference to international norms' which, among others, can also provide grounds of limitation on freedom of expression."108 250. The African Commission also notes that the right to freedom of expression also carries with it the right to impart information to others, meaning that when an individual's freedom of expression is unlawfully restricted, it is not only the right of that individual that is being violated, but also the right of all others to "receive" information and ideas. 251. The Inter-American Court upon referral from the Inter-American Commission confirmed and expanded on the Inter-American Commission's ruling in the case of Claude Reyes et al v. Chile109 holding that, Article 13 of the American Convention, which specifically establishes the rights to 'seek' and 'receive' information, protects the right of all persons to receive information held by the State. It further asserted that, the information should be provided without a need to demonstrate a direct interest in obtaining it, or personal harm, except where legitimate restrictions apply. 252. Thus, the right to freedom of expression and to receive information is broadly conceived to include information of all types of knowledge including in political terms as expressed in this Communication, and the Respondent State has an obligation to ensure that this information is accessible without impediment. Thus, limiting the right of the Victims to freedom of expression also limits their right to receive information. 253. The above principle was expressed by the African Commission in the Jawara Case, where it held that, the politically motivated harassment and intimidation of journalists not only deprived them "of their rights to freely express and disseminate their opinions, but also the public, of the right to information."110 254. In the present Communication, the Victims were all journalists, some of whom were allegedly reporting on the events of the demonstration and taking photographs and were allegedly assaulted and molested for their involvement in the protest to amend Article 76 of the Egyptian Constitution. This restricts their right to freedom of expression and opinion. 255. It is not evident from the evidence presented in this Communication that this restriction falls within the meaning provided by Principle II(2) of the Declaration, that is, 'provided by law', 'serve a legitimate interest', 'necessary', and in a 'democratic society.' Furthermore, the Respondent State has not provided any information indicating that the Victims, in exercising their right to freedom of expression, were threatening national security or public interest.111 256. On the bases of the above arguments, there is clearly a violation of Article 9(2) of the African Charter by the Respondent State. Alleged violation of Article 16- The Right to health 257. The Complainants allege a violation of Article 16 of the African Charter by the Respondent State. 258. Article 16 has two facets to it: Article 16(1) states, "Every individual has a right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health," and Article 16(2) provides that "Sates parties to the present Charter shall take all necessary measures to protect the health of citizens and ensure that they receive medical attention when they are sick." 259. The Complainants submit that the acts perpetrated against the Victims included the infliction of physical, mental and sexual harm which has resulted in physical and emotional injury. According to the Complainants, this has detrimentally affected their physical and mental well-being contrary to Article 16 of 23