Charter". 50. The suspension of the Bill of Rights and consequently the application of the Charter was not only a violation of Article 1 but also a restriction on the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter, thus violating Article 2 of the Charter as well. 51. Article 4 of the Charter states that "Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right''. 52. While the Complainant alleges that there have been extra-judicial killings, no concrete evidence was adduced to support this allegation. The military government has provided official post-mortem reports on the causes of the deaths of Messrs. Koro Ceesay and Sadibu Hydara. The government does not dispute the fact that soldiers died during the counter coup in November 1994, but claims, "soldiers of both sides lost their lives due mainly to the fact that the rebels were fighting back with soldiers loyal to the government". It also claims that since the take-over, not a single individual has been deliberately killed. 53. It is not for the Commission to verify the authenticity of the post-mortem reports or the truth of the government's defence. The burden is on the Complainant to furnish the Commission with evidence of his allegations. In the absence of concrete proof, the Commission cannot hold the latter to be in violation of Article 4 of the Charter. 54. Article 5 of the Charter reads: "... All forms of ... torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited". 55. The Complainant alleges that the military perpetrated a reign of terror, intimidation and torture when it seized power. While there is evidence of intimidation, arrests and detentions, there is no independent report of torture. 56. The Complainant further alleges that detention of persons incommunicado and preventing them from seeing their relatives constitutes torture. The State has refuted this claim and has challenged the Complainant to verify the truth from those who were detained. To date, the Commission has received no evidence from the complainant. In the absence of proof therefore, the Commission cannot hold the government to be in violation of Article 5. In this regard, the Commission is relying on its decision in communication ACHPR/60/91: 27 [sic]* where it held that " without specific information as to the nature of the acts themselves, the Commission is thus unable to find a violation of Article 5". 57. Article 6 of the Charter reads: "Every individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of his person. No one may be deprived of this freedom except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested". 58. The Military government has not refuted the allegations of arbitrary arrests and detentions, but has defended its position by stating that, its action must be "studied and placed in the context of the changed circumstances in The Gambia". It also claims that it is acting within the confines of legislation 'previously laid down by law', as required by the wordings of Article 6 of the Charter. 59. The Commission in its decision on communication 101/93 laid down a general principle with respect to freedom of association that "competent authorities should not enact provisions which limit the exercise of this freedom. The competent authorities should not override constitutional provisions or undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution or international human rights standards" . This principle therefore applies not only to freedom of association but also to all other rights and freedoms. For a State to avail itself of this plea, it must show that such a law is consistent with its obligations under the Charter. The Commission finds the arrests and incommunicado detention of the aforementioned persons inconsistent with Gambia's obligations under the Charter. They constitute arbitrary deprivation of their liberty and thus a violation of Article 6 of the Charter. Decree No. 3 is, therefore, contrary to the spirit of Article 6. 60. Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter reads: Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises:... the right to be tried within a reasonable period of time by an impartial court or tribunal. 61. Given that the Minister of Interior could detain anyone without trial for up to six months, and could extend the period ad infinitum, his powers in this case, are analogous to that of a court, and with all intents and purposes, he is more likely to use his discretion at the detriment of the detainees, who are already in a disadvantaged position. The victims will be at the mercy of the Minister who, in this case, will render favour rather than vindicating a right. This power granted to the Minister renders valueless the provision enshrined in Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 62. Article 7(2) of the Charter reads: No one may be condemned for an act or omission which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed. No penalty may be inflicted for an offence for which no provision was made at 5