Applicants appeared before the Court in the Gambia and the record of proceedings of the 20th of April 2016 would indicate that the Court was informed of the injuries which was not denied by the Respondent. That the force used by the agents of the Respondent was disproportionate in the circumstance. The Applicant’s further narrated that sometime on the 14th June, 2016 some 14 out of the 25 persons arrested on 14th April, 2016 were released when it became apparent that they were not members of the United Democratic Party (UDP). That the 1st -19th Applicants who were transferred to the Central Prison in Mile 2 from the Police intervention unit on the 17th April, were remanded without a remand warrant or Court order up until the 20th April when they were brought to Court. That six (6) out of the detainees were held in solitary confinement at the prison. The Applicants referred to the record of proceedings of the national court to confirm this position. The Applicants’ reiterated that they were denied access to Counsel, family members and medical treatment. That even the Court to which they were charged ordered that they be granted access to Counsel and medical treatment but the Respondent failed to comply with the said order. The Applicants’ added that they had to attend Court with the same clothing they had since they were arrested and that on the 21st April, the Court had to make a second order urging compliance with its first order. The Applicants states that their Counsel was compelled to withdraw its representation because the Court consistently refused all applications made on their behalf and that their case was transferred to another Court two hundred (200) kilometers away from the scene of the alleged offence which lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The Applicants assert that they addressed a letter of complaint to the Chief Justice dated 24th May, 2016 in protest but to no avail. That the conduct of proceedings and atmosphere was characterized by intimidation especially with the presence of dozens of armed security personnel with weapons in and around the Court room. That even the Counsel was not permitted to consult with the Applicants in private and when the attention of the Court was drawn to intervene, it found nothing wrong with the actions of the security officers. 9