first count was conspiracy to commit an offence contrary to Section 384 and the second count was armed robbery contrary to Sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the case, undisputed by the Respondent, also show that after the Kisutu Resident Magistrate's acquitted them of these counts, they were, on 14 March 2005, again arraigned before the same Court on two new charges:(i) stealing, contrary to Section 265 of the Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 399/2005 and (ii) armed robbery, contrary to Section 287 of the Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 400/2005. 128. These charges were later dropped when the appeal made on the original charge of armed robbery succeeded at the High Court, where their acquittal was set aside and substituted with conviction and a sentence of 30 years' imprisonment. It appears from this series of facts that the authorities of the Respondent issued a new charge on different sections of the Penal Code against the Applicants on the basis of the same facts as those relied upon in the original armed robbery charge and to the same trial Magistrate. 129. In view of the above, the question this Court should address is whether the re-arrest of the Applicants was contrary to Article 6 of the Charter, which provides that: "Everyone shall have the right to liberty and security of his person and that no one shall be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained."25 130. Under Article 6 of the Charter, the right to liberty prohibits arbitrary arrest and this generally involves the deprivation of liberty of individuals contrary to the law or against the reasons and conditions specified by the law. 26 The notion of arbitrariness also covers deprivation of liberty contrary to the standard of reasonableness, that is, whether it is "just, necessary, proportionate and equitable in opposition to unjust, absurd and arbitrary.27 25 See also Articles 3 and 9, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). 5, European Convention on Human Rights (1950) , , article 7, Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (1969), article XXV, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (148)\\, article 14, Arab Charter on Human Rights (2004). 26 Ibid 27 See Mukong v. Cameroon, Comm. No. 458/1991, UN Human Rights Committee adopted on 21 July 1994, para. 9.8, Hugo van Alphen v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 305/1988, UN Doc. 34 /rf t%