before a judge and to invoke the appropriate procedures to review the legality of the arrest, all in violation of Article 7 of the Convention which recognizes the right to personal liberty by providing that: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the awfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. . 23 Consolidated communication 140/94, 141/94, 145/95 Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda/Nigeria. 24 Ibilgin v Turkey (2003) 35 EHRR 39. 25 Communication 225/98 - HURILAWS/Nigeria; See also Lorse v Netherlands (2003) 37 EHRR3 26 Consolidated communication 137/94, 139/94, 161/97 - International PEN, Constitutional Rights Project, Interights and Civil Liberties Organisation (on behalf of Ken Saro-Wiwa Jnr.)/Nigeria 27 Consolidated communication 105/93, 128/94, 130/94, 152/96- Media Rights Agenda, Constitutional Rights Project, Media Rights Agenda & Constitutional R,ights Project/Nigeria; consolidated communication 140/94, 141/94, 145/95- Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation & Media Rights Agenda/Nigeria; communication 212/98 - Amnesty International/Zambia; See also Thoma v Luxembourg (2003) 36 EHRR 21. 28 See Yazar, Karatas, Aksoy & People's Labour Party (HEP) v Turkey (2003) 36 EHRR 6 29 Consolidated communication 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93 - Amnesty International, Comite Loosli Bacheland, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa/Sudan. 30 See New York Times v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964) at 270; Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd (2001) AC 127 31 Communication 101/93 - Civil Liberties Organisation (In respect of the Nigerian Bar Association)/Nigeria. 32 See Velásquez-Rodríguez Case, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 29 July, 1998 paragraphs 169 - 170 × 169. According to Article 1 (1), any exercise of public power that violates the rights recognized by the Convention is illegal. Whenever a State organ, official or public entity violates one of those rights, this constitutes a failure of the duty to respect the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. 170. This conclusion is independent of whether the organ or official has contravened provisions of internal law or overstepped the limits of his authority: under international law a State is responsible for the acts of its agents undertaken in their official capacity and for their omissions, even when those agents act outside the sphere of their authority or violate internal law. 33 Ibid para 172 33