arrested person receive as much detail about the charges as would be needed later to prepare for trial. (See Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34 §30, 32, §31). 227. As to the Applicant's allegation that he was arrested at his home on April 21, 2020 and detained at the Criminal Intelligence and Investigation Service (SCRIC) premises without being informed of the reasons for his arrest; that even during his hearing, which began at around 10:00 a.m. on April 21, 2020, it was at 3:15 p.m. that the investigators notified him of the charges, the Court notes that the Respondent has not disputed such claims. 228. The Court further notes that no explanation was provided to the Applicant about the reasons for his detention, that he was notified of the indictment only after 6 hours, after the start of the hearing of the Applicant and the Respondent did not provide any reason to justify such delay. 229. The Respondent has only admitted that following the requisitions of the Federal Attorney, the Central Bureau of Investigations and Criminal Investigations invited the Applicant to appear on three (3) consecutive occasions, but the latter did not deign to appear, which constitutes disobedience to judicial authority; that it was following this refusal that the Central Bureau of Investigation and Criminal Investigations proceeded to arrest the Applicant in order to further investigate the facts of aggravated disturbance of public order, violation of the internal security of the State and dissemination of false news of which he was accused, in accordance with the requisitions of the Federal Attorney. 230. As can be seen, the Respondent has neither claimed nor proven that it notified the Applicant of the facts leading to his detention at the beginning of his hearing, and the Applicant was heard for more than 6 hours without knowing the reason for his detention. (See Human Rights Committee, 60