004055 235 . It is clear from this Article 58 that while certain restrictions are intended to ensure the appearance and participation of persons in proceedings, others seek to avoid possible obstacles to investigation, including pressures, popular actions, and deletion or modification of evidence . In the present case, the Court considers that in view of the grounds mentioned in this text and given the Applicant's position as businessman and politician, the judicial authority could reasonably be apprehensive of pressures from him or consultations between the various actors of the export-import chain or indeed popular actions, and opt for custody rather than freedom . Custody could be justified in the circumstances. 236. As regards the duration of the remand in custody, the Applicant argues that for the eight days, he was heard only once. The Court notes that whereas extension of the detention period to a maximum of eight days is provided by law, the opportunity for a hearing is assessed according to the progress of the investigation procedure and its needs. The law, a priori, does not set the number of times a person in police custody must be heard . 237. The Court holds in conclusion that the Applicant's right to liberty and security of his person guaranteed by Articles 6 of the Charter, 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has not been violated. D. Alleged violation of the right to respect for dignity and reputation 238. The Applicant alleges that he was brutally arrested without explanation as to why he was arrested. He further alleges that the arrest was carried out instantly , without consideration, and in a high-handed and brutal manner without prior notice . 239. He also alleges that the acquittal judgment on the benefit of the doubt represents an affront to his honour; that, besides, the procedure of summary trial to which he was subjected is an exceptional procedure intended only to arbitrarily deprive him of his liberty and damage his reputation . I