000908 75. However, the Court considers that, the fact that the Applicant did not hold the documents expressly required in the Act, did not automatically render his stay illegal' A contrary position would amount to a narrow interpretation of the law, which would not be appropriate for a human rights based determination. A purposive interpretation of the law is further called for where there is a risk of a subsequent action by the Respondent State that is likely to have a critical impact on the life of the person involved. 76. The Court is of the view that, in such circumstances, the determinant should be the reasonable expectation of a certain course of action which is required when an authority or the law has induced in a person, who may be affected by subsequent decisions, a reasonable expectation that he or she will retain the said benefit or will be seen as having obtained the same by law.10 77. ln the instant matter, the court notes that, at the time of his arrest on g June 2006, the Applicant held two documents of probative value, that is, a cerficate of loss of his passport issued by the Tanzanian police and an official correspondence from the Embassy of his country to the Respondent state confirming that he was in the process of obtaining a new passport. while in possession of these documents, the Applicant could legitimately expect that the Respondent State would not issue a Notice of Prohibited lmmigrant against him because the certificate of loss was meant to replace the documents expressly provided for in the law and was valid, having been issued by the competent authorities. 78. ln the Court's view, reasonable expectation required that when presented with the aforementioned documents, the Respondent state,s agents should have conferred with the issuing authorities to ascertain their validity. 79. The position of the Court is premised on the fact that the documents referred to were issued on 2 June and s June 2006 respectively, four (4) days prior to the 10 See Stre tch v. United Kingdom (Merits and Just Satisfaction), no. 44277t98, ss 32-35, ECHR,24 June 2003. (- .-. .* 20