above challenges to Mr Ghazi Suleiman‟s freedom of expression by the government of Sudan and [sic] violate his right to freedom of expression under Article 9 of the African Charter. However, the allegations of arrests, detentions and threats constitute also a violation of Article 6 of the Charter. 54.Article 10 of the [African] Charter provides: “Every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law”. 55. Article 11 of the [African] Charter provides: “Every individual shall have the right to assemble freely with others. The exercise of this right shall be subjected only to necessary restrictions provided for by the law, in particular those enacted in the interest of national security…and rights and freedoms of others.” 56. By preventing Mr Ghazi Suleiman from gathering with others to discuss human rights and by punishing him for doing so, the Respondent State had violated Mr Ghazi Suleiman‟s human rights to freedom of association and assembly which are protected by Article 10 and 11 of the African Charter. 57. The right to freedom of movement is guaranteed by Article 12 of the [African] Charter that reads in relevant paragraph 1:“Every individual shall have the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of the State provided he abides by the law”. 58. The communication alleges that some security officials who prohibited Mr Ghazi Suleiman from travelling to Sinnar, threatened him that if he made the trip, he would be arrested. 59. The Complainant states that Ghazi Suleiman was arrested and released after being convicted, sentenced and incarcerated. Before his release, he was made to sign a statement restraining his future freedom, which he refused to sign [sic]. 60. The Respondent State argues that Mr Ghazi Suleiman has never been prohibited from delivering lectures on human rights. He indicates that Mr Ghazi Suleiman was free to travel and he in fact participated in a human rights conference held in Milan, Italy, without any intervention from the authorities. The Respondent State adds that there is no control of movement of the people within the national territory, which is in line with Article 12 of the African Charter. 61. Mr Ghazi Suleiman was acting to promote the protection of human rights in his country, Sudan. This is not only indicated by his longstanding record of human rights advocacy, but also by the events that transpired around the time of each arrest or act of harassment. These events always concerned actions or statements he made in support of human rights. 62. Such actions and expressions are among the most important exercises of human rights and as such should be given substantial protection that do not allow the State to suspend these rights for frivolous reasons and in a manner that is thus disproportionate to the interference with the exercise of these fundamental human rights. 63. The disproportionate actions of the government of Sudan against Mr Ghazi Suleiman is evidenced by the fact that the government has not offered Mr Ghazi Suleiman an alternative means of expressing his support for human rights in each instance. Instead the Respondent State has either prohibited Mr Ghazi Suleiman from exercising his human rights by issuing threats, or punished him after summary trial, without considering the value of his actions for the protection and promotion of human rights. 64. By stopping Mr Ghazi Suleiman from travelling to Sinnar, which is located in the Blue Nile State, a part within the country under the control of the Government of Sudan, to speak to a group of human rights defenders, the Government of Sudan violated Mr Ghazi Suleiman‟s right to freedom of movement in his own country. This constitutes a violation of Article 12 of the [African] Charter 65. The fact that Mr Ghazi Suleiman advocates peaceful means of action and his advocacy has never caused civil unrest is additional evidence that the complained about actions of the Respondent State were not proportionate and necessary to the achievement of any legitimate goal. Furthermore, the actions of the government of Sudan not only prevent Mr Ghazi Suleiman from exercising his human rights, but these actions have a seriously discouraging effect on others who might also contribute to promoting and protecting human rights in Sudan. 66. For the above reasons, the interference with Mr Ghazi Suleiman‟s rights of freedom of expression, association and assembly cannot be justified. Holding