212. In other words, the Respondent, on whom the burden falls, has failed to prove to what extent the restriction imposed on the Applicant’s right to freedom of expression meets the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality as required by the aforementioned legal provisions. (See the cited case ILLIA MALAM MAMANE SAIDAT v. REPUBLIC OF NIGER, paras. 127 and 128). 213. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent violated the Applicant’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Articles 9(2) of the African Charter, 19 of the UDHR and 19 of the ICCPR. 4. The arbitrariness of the Applicant’s arrest and detention in the premises of the Criminal Intelligence and Investigation Service, in violation of the provisions in Article 9(2) of the ICCPR, Article 9 of the UDHR and Article 6, in fine, of the Charter 214. The Applicant alleged that he was arrested at his home, under circumstances of unprecedented violence and brutality, while he did not put up any resistance to his arrest, the law and order enforcement agents and security did not immediately notify him of any charges. In effect, he was arrested and taken to the SCRIC facility, without being informed of the reasons for his arrest; 215. Even during his hearing, which began around 10:00 a.m. on April 21, 2020, it was at 3:15 p.m. that the investigators notified him of the charges, which was the subject of an observation by one of his lawyers, who, incidentally, requested that his observation be entered into the records, which was not submitted for the Applicant's signature until the afternoon of 56