qualification of the facts, that is, the arrest and detention of Mr Moto constitute a violation of the provisions of the Charter, be maintained. In other words, he requested the Commission not to close the matter. He further requested that the Commission orders the payment of damages to Mr Moto for the period spent in detention. 10. At its 19th Session held in March 1996, the Commission declared the communication admissible and decided to rule on its merits at its twentieth session; the Complainant and government have been informed accordingly. 11. At its 20th Session, after hearing from an official delegation from Equatorial Guinea, the Commission deferred the consideration of the case on its merits to its 21st Session and requested for additional information on the exhaustion of local remedies. 12. During its twenty first Session, the Commission decided to postpone the consideration of the case on its merits pending the outcome of the appeal that Mr Moto, according to the Government, is reported to have lodged against the decision sentencing him to a prison term. 13. At its 22nd Session held from 2nd to 11th November 1997 in Banjul (The Gambia), the Commission ruled on the merits of the communication. Law 13. At its 22nd Session held from 2nd to 11th November 1997 in Banjul (The Gambia), the Commission ruled on the merits of the communication. Admissibility 14. Article 56 paragraph 5 of the Charter requires that communications be brought before the Commission only "after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”. 15. What the Complainant is seeking is a ruling by the Commission that Mr Moto's arrest and detention constitute a violation of the Charter. As for the Government, it maintains that Mr Moto has appealed against the two charges for which he was prosecuted. The Commission notes that the outcome of this appeal remains unknown. 16. Moreover, given that Mr Moto has been granted amnesty, it appears most unlikely for any domestic court to entertain this appeal as, this would only be a purely theoretical exercise. However, certain elements of the case seem to indicate procedural of laws during the trial and the Commission would like these issues clarified to enable it come to a valid decision on the case. On these grounds, the Commission declares the communication admissible. Merits 17. The Complainant invokes the violation of Articles 2 (enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the Charter without discrimination), 9 paragraph 2 (the right to express disseminate has opinions), 10 paragraph 1, (the right to free association), 13 paragraph 1 (the right to participate freely in the government of his country) and 20 paragraph 1 (to right to self-determination). 18. All these allegations are founded on the assertion that Mr Moto Nsa was arrested, detained, tried and sentenced because of his political opinion. The Commission is of the view that, although this could be the case, the communication does not however contain elements likely to reasonably lead to such a conclusion. 19. The information relating to the arrest of another opposition leader contained in the Complainant's submission are rather circumstantial and does not enable the Commission to clearly establish that Mr Moto was arrested because of his political opposition to the government of the day. The information does not also indicate how Mr Moto allegedly tried to express his political opinions or set up associations with other persons. In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the view that the violation of the above mentioned provisions of the Charter has not been established. 20. The Complainant then goes on to base his complaint on certain provisions of Article 7 of the Charter, which stipulates that: