001069 126. However, as indicated above, the Applicant has been convicted, detained and sentenced for illegal entry and still continues to be in prison even after having served the two (2) Respondent years’ prison sentence that was meted out to him in 2010. The State has not provided any justification for restrictions that would fall under the provision of Article 12 (2) of the Charter such as protection of national security, law and order, public health or morality warranting the restriction of the Applicant’s freedom of movement. 127. In view of the aforesaid, the Court holds that the Applicant’s arrest and continued detention constitute a violation of Article 12 of the Charter. iv. Alleged violation of Article 1 of the Charter 128. The Applicant submits that the Respondent State violated Article 1 of the Charter. 129. According character, to the Applicant, Article and 1 confers on the Charter its legally binding therefore a violation of any right under the Charter automatically means a violation of this Article. 130. He avers that the Commission has found that Article 1 had been violated even where a complainant himself had not invoked a violation of that particular Article. In this regard, the Applicant made specific mention of the case of Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al. v. Cameroon wherein the Commission stated that, according to its wellestablished jurisprudence, a violation of any provision of the Charter automatically constitutes a violation of Article 1 thereof, as it depicts a failure on the part of the State Party concerned to take adequate measures to give effect to the provisions of the Charter.*° 131. 30 The Respondent State did not make any submissions in this respect. Communication No. 266/03. Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v. Cameroon.