of the law and by competent officials or persons authorized for that purpose, pursuant to a warrant, on reasonable suspicion or for probable cause. 258. In the particular context of the right to a fair trial, the Respondent State does not deny the Complainants' allegations that it conducted "adverse negative publicity" against the Complainants before and during the trial through documentaries that painted the Complainants in criminal light. The Complainants submitted and the Respondent State does not deny that when they had obtained an injunctive order from a High Court against the broadcast of one of the documentaries, the Registrar of the High Court declined to serve the injunctive order on the Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation and give a copy to the Complainants. 259. The Commission finds that these preventative acts by the Respondent State not only obstructed the course of justice for the Complainants, but also served the purpose of tainting the conduct and character of the Complainants while their cases were still pending in court. This certainly infringed on their right to a Fair Trial under Article 7 of the African Charter. 260. Article 16 of the Charter guarantees that "[elvery individual shall have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health" and that State parties to the present Charter shall take the necessary measures to protect the health of their people and to ensure that they receive medical attention when they are sick." /I 261. 262. In the case of International Pen and Others (on behalf of Saro-Wiwa) v Nigeria,48 the Commission held that Nigeria's failure to provide access to medical care to Ken SaroWiwa, causing his health to suffer to that point where his life was endangered, amounted to a violation of the right to health under Article 16 of the African Charter. This implies that State Parties have an obligation to ensure that persons in detention have access to proper medical care. As a general principle, State authorities must refrain from arresting, detaining, or imprisoning individuals or groups in flagrant disregard of due process of law or without legal justification. In Article 19 v Eritrea (the Article 19 case),49the Commission noted that while arrests and detention may be legal according to domestic law, it will be arbitrary and therefore unlawful if it is inappropriate, unreasonable, unjustified and unpredictable. 50 In that case, the Commission noted that arbitrariness should not be equated with against the law but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process. 263. In the instant case, the Respondent State does not deny the limitations imposed on the liberty of the Complainants, acting pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009. The Respondent State does not also show cause to justify that the restriction imposed on the liberty of the Complainants seeks to fulfil a legitimate aim, is .J:ea~ I? ~7"" ~ proportionate and absolutely necessary. .,,J' / 1 l'o~ 264. The Commission recalls ACHPR/Res.218(LI)2012 on the Human Rights ituatioy{ in the Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, where it noted that it was: ~~. ~!(I (.) "" .... AU·\t~ ~ do.. (2000) AHRLR 212 (ACHPR 1998) para 112. 49 (2007) AHRLR 73 (ACHPR 2007) para 93. 50 Article 19 case (n 32 above) para 93. J t"'I a? 48 "" ~ 0 ( ,. .~ '(r <l"u ( I ~ C) f<_,"" ~ 'II4'"R1C.~\~ ..". c ~::- 41 c-, J. ~ /.' 'oJ,.... , . ,,< " "-' .. O"'~F['~',· \ r