37. We say so because we are of the firm view that the principles set out in Article 6(d) and 7(2) were not inscribed in vain. The Jurisdiction of this Court to interprete any breach of those Articles was also not in vain, neither was it cosmetic. The invocation of the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights was not merely decorative of the Treaty but was meant to bind Partner States hence the words that Partner States must bind themselves to the “adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of Law …as well as the recognition, promotion and protection of Human and Peoples Rights in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights” (ACHPR). It is common knowledge that Article 6 of the Charter provides that a person shall not be deprived of his liberty except in circumstances permissible by Law. 38. Where a person is deliberately deprived of his liberty for a period of five (5) months by a Partner State and the Military High Court of the Partner State finds the deprivation to be “irregular” and therefore unlawful, how can this Court in its interpretive mandate find otherwise? 39. It has been suggested by the 2nd Respondent that once the Subject’s situation was “regularized” by the military High REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 26