122. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to enjoy family life as guaranteed by Article 18 of the Charter. F. Allegation of violation of the Applicant’s right to free movement 123. The Applicant contends that the Respondent State has violated his right to leave and return to his country contrary to Article 12 of the Charter. * 124. The Respondent State did not address this allegation in its Response. *** 125. Article 12 of the Charter, materially, provides as follows: 1. Every individual shall have the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of a State provided he abides by the law. 2. Every individual shall have the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country. This right may only be subject to restrictions, provided for by law for the protection of national security, law and order, public health or morality. 126. The Court reiterates its earlier finding that it did not find any manifest errors in the procedure adopted by the Respondent State in convicting the Applicant. Given the lawfulness of the conviction, which is the direct precursor to the limitation of the Applicant’s freedom of movement, the Court finds that the Applicant’s right to movement was not violated. 127. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to freedom of movement as guaranteed by Article 12 of the Charter. 30