37. The proscription of specific newspapers by name and the sealing off of their premises, without a hearing at which they could defend themselves, or any accusation of wrongdoing, legal or otherwise, amounts to harassment of the press. Such actions not only have the effect of hindering the directly affected persons in disseminating their opinions, but also poses an immediate risk that journalists and newspapers not yet affected by any of the decrees will subject themselves to self-censorship in order to be allowed to carry on their work. 38. Decrees like these pose a serious threat to the public of the right to receive information that is not in accordance with what the government would like the public to know. The right to receive information is important: Article 9 does not seem to permit derogation, no matter what the subject of the information or opinions and no matter the political situation of a country. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proscription of the newspapers is a violation of Article 9(1). 39. The Complainant argues that Article 9(2) must be read as referring to "already existing law". The government argues that the decrees were justified by the special circumstances; the Complainant invokes the constancy of international obligations. 40. According to Article 9(2) of the Charter, dissemination of opinions may be restricted by law. This does not however mean that national law can set aside the right to express and disseminate one's opinions guaranteed at the international level; this would make the protection of the right to express one's opinion ineffective. To permit national law to take precedence over international law would defeat the purpose of codifying certain rights in international law and indeed, the whole essence of treaty making. 41. In contrast to other international human rights instruments, the African Charter does not contain a derogation clause. Therefore limitations on the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter cannot be justified by emergencies or special circumstances. The only legitimate reasons for limitations of the rights and freedoms of the African Charter are found in Article 27(2), that is, that the rights of the Charter "shall be exercised with due regard to the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest". 42. The justification of limitations must be strictly proportionate with and absolutely necessary for the advantages, which follow. Most important, a limitation may not erode a right such that the right itself becomes illusory. 43. The government has provided no concrete evidence that the proscription was for any of the above reasons given in Article 27(2). It has failed to prove that proscription of the newspapers was for any reason but simple criticism of the government. If the newspapers had been guilty of libel, for example, they could have individually been sued and called upon to defend themselves. There was no substantive evidence presented that the newspapers were threatening national security or public order. 44. For the government to proscribe a particular publication, by name, is thus disproportionate and not necessary. Laws made to apply specifically to one individual or legal personality raise the serious danger of discrimination and lack of equal treatment before the law, guaranteed by Article 3. The proscription of these publications cannot therefore be said to be "within the law" and constitutes a violation of Article 9(2) 45. Communication 140/94 alleges that the government sent armed gangs to attack leading human rights activists and to destroy their homes. The government has made no substantive response to this allegation. 46. Article 5 of the Charter states: Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly ...torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment shall be prohibited . 47. The African Commission in several previous decisions, has set out the principle that where allegations of human rights abuse go uncontested by the government concerned, even after repeated notifications, the Commission must decide on the facts provided by the Complainant and treat those facts as given (See the Commission's decisions in communications 59/91, 60/91, 64/92, 68/92, 78/92, 87/93 and 101/93). This principle conforms to the practice of other international human rights adjudicatory bodies and with the Commission's duty to protect human rights as provided for in the Charter. 48. In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds a violation of Article 5. 49. The detention of six human rights activists without charges as alleged in communication 140/94 and the detention of Mr Bola Bolawole and 15 journalists in " The Guardian" group as alleged in communication 145/95 has also not been disputed by the government. 50. Article 6 of the Charter reads: Every individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of his person...In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained . 51. To detain persons on account of their political beliefs, especially where no charges are brought against them renders the deprivation of liberty arbitrary. The government has maintained that no one is presently detained without charge. But this will not excuse past arbitrary detentions. The government has failed to 4