31. The government argues that Malaolu was tried along with a number of people accused of involvement in an alleged plot to overthrow the late Gen. Sani Abacha. It asserts that without going into the merits or demerits of the trial, it was not an ostensible case of victimisation against Malaolu or his profession. Indeed, one or two other journalists were also sentenced to imprisonment at the same trial. 32. It claims that the whole episode took place during a prolonged military regime. It is well known all over the world that military regimes are abnormal regimes and a painful aberration. There was no way of controlling any wanton acts of abuse of fundamental rights by a military junta determined to stay in power at all costs, no matter whose ox was gored. 33. In respect of the allegation that the trial was not fair, it argued that the right to fair hearing in public was subject to the proviso that the court or tribunal might exclude from the proceedings persons other than the parties thereto in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, etc. 34. The Government of Nigeria affirms and reiterates its capacity and determination to defend and promote the rights of its citizens and intends to provide effective and adequate representation at the hearing of the case. Additional Response by the State Party 35. Mr Malaolu was arrested, detained, tried and convicted under an existing legislation made by a “legitimate” military administration, which was imposed on the people of Nigeria. Be that as it may, the military regime of General Abdulsalami Abubakar caused Mr Malaolu to be granted pardon, and he can institute an action in the ordinary courts for violation of his rights and also petition the Judicial Commission of Inquiry of human rights violations. Meanwhile, the obnoxious enactment has been repealed. Law Admissibility th 36. At its 25 Ordinary session held in Bujumbura, Burundi, the Commission requested the Secretariat to give its opinion on the effect of Article 56.7 of the Charter in view of the prevailing political situation in Nigeria. Relying on the case law of the Commission, the Secretariat submitted that based on the well established principle of international law, a new government inherits the previous government’s international obligations, including responsibility for the previous government’s misdeeds (see Krishna Achutan and Amnesty International/Malawi, communications 62/92 [sic], 68/92, 78/92). 37. The Commission has always dealt with communications by deciding upon the facts alleged at the time of submission of the communication (see communications 27/89, 46/91 [sic] and 99/93). Therefore, even if the situation has improved, such as leading to the release of the detainees, repealing of the offensive laws and tackling of impunity, the position still remains that the responsibility of the present Government of Nigeria would still be engaged for acts of human rights violations, which were perpetrated by its predecessors. 38. Furthermore, the Commission noted that although Nigeria is under a democratically elected government, the new constitution provides in its Section 6(6)(d) that no legal action can be brought to th challenge ‘any existing law made on or after 15 January, 1966 for determining any issue or question as to the competence of any authority or person to make any such law’. 39. For the above reasons, and also for the fact that, as alleged, there were no avenues for exhausting local remedies, the Commission declared the communication admissible. Merits 40. The Complainant alleges that the arrest and subsequent detention of Malaolu was arbitrary as he was neither shown any warrant of arrest nor informed of the offences for which he was arrested. Further, that Malaolu was arrested by armed soldiers from the Directorate of Military Intelligence at his