of the African Charter is a subjective one which may differ for civil and for criminal matters. In the instant matter, the African Commission does not accept the arguments of the Complainant that his case was not heard and unduly delayed. The African Commission, 182. Declares that the Respondent State has not violated the Victim's right to a have ones cause heard as provided in Article 7(1) (c)(d) of the African Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 10 (1) - right to free association. Article 10(1) of the African Charter states: Every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law. 183. The Complainant argues that Article 10(1) the African Charter guarantees the right to freedom of association. He argues that the arrest and the consequent acts of torture perpetrated against the Victim owing to his alleged affiliation with the opposition party by representing members of the party in legal matters is contrary to the right to freedom of association. 184. The Respondent State disagrees. It argues that the Victim's arrest was for contravening a section of POSA following the discovery of a written document on his person. The African Commission is not told what this 'written document' is by both parties. Nevertheless, the Respondent State avers that the Victim was not arrested for his association with a political party but rather on the reasonable suspicion of his having contravened the law. It further informs the African Commission that the Attorney General later withdrew charges before plea to enable investigation to be carried as to who the author of the document found in Victim possession was. The Complainant does not deny that statement in its rebuttal. The Respondent State says that the Victim was arrested on the basis that there was reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and he was brought before a court of competent jurisdiction, competent in law to hear the case and had jurisdiction over the subject matter. It argues that this, therefore, could not have been in pursuit of an agenda to deny the Victim his freedom of association. 185. In Communication 101/93: Civil Liberties Organization (in respect of the Nigerian Bar Association) v Nigeria, the African Commission stated that freedom of association is enunciated as an individual right and is first and foremost a duty for the state to abstain from interfering with the free formation of associations. It said that there must always be a general capacity for citizens to join, without state interference, in associations in order to attain various ends. In the instant matter, can the arrest and Respondent State? The Victim has not conclusively informed the African Commission that he was arrested for being a member of the MDC. In his initial Complaint he informs the African Commission that on 14 January 2003, he was taking instructions from a Mr Job Sikhala, a Member of Parliament in Zimbabwe for legal representation in a matter involving alleged political harassment by members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, when riot police stormed the room and arrested him and four others in the room.35 Even though, he inferred that he was at one time a student activist of the MDC, the Respondent State says that the Victim was arrested on the basis that there was reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and he was brought before a court of competent jurisdiction. 186. In reaching a conclusion as to whether Article 10 has been violated by the Respondent State, the African Commission is of the considered opinion that a legitimate government do have the right to effect an arrest if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is being planned or being committed, as long as due process is followed and reasonable force used to effect such arrest. In Communication 101/93: Civil Liberties Organization (in respect of the Nigerian Bar Association) v Nigeria, the African Commission stated that in regulating the use of this right, the competent authorities should not enact provisions which would limit the exercise of this freedom. The competent authorities should not override constitutional provisions or undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and international human rights standards. 187. Nothing in the submissions of the Complainant suggests that the Respondent State has interfered with such a right.36 In the above mentioned Communication, the African Commission found a violation of Article 10 against Nigeria because the body of Benchers was dominated by representatives of the government and has wide discretionary powers. This interference with the free association of the Nigerian Bar Association, the African Commission said, was inconsistent with the preamble of the African Charter in conjunction with the UN Basic Principle on the Independence of the Judiciary thereby constitutes a violation 24