lawyer and in the case of Mr. Hummeida, was denied access to consular assistance on request. It is also evident that the arrest and detention of the Complainants had no basis in Sudanese law. 105. The Commission has established in the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa , regarding the right to liberty and security of the person, that: States must ensure that no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention and arrest, detention or imprisonment shall only be carried out strictly in accordance with the law...pursuant to a warrant, on reasonable suspicion or for probable cause. 29 106. The Commission observes that the fact that the Complainants were invited for a meeting from which they were not allowed to leave voluntarily and were subsequently detained and not given reasons for the detention is arbitrary. The Commission also observes that no charges were brought against the Complainants while in detention and that procedural safeguards relating to their arrest and detention in terms of being informed of their right to access a lawyer and consular assistance in respect of Mr. Hummeida, was not respected. 30 The Commission notes also that the acts of the NISS were not in conformity with Sudanese law. 107. The Commission therefore considers these acts were not only arbitrary, but also illegal and constitute a violation of Article 6 of the Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 7 108. The Complainants contend that their right to a fair trial under Article 7 of the Charter was violated by the Respondent State. Article 7 of the Charter provides that [quote]every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: 1. The Right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions...; 2. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; 3. The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of one's choice; 4. The right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. 109. The Complainants have submitted that there was no judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention; that they were not allowed access to a lawyer and were not informed of the reasons for their arrest. It has also been submitted that Article 30 and 31 of the National Security Act of Sudan is incompatible with Sudan's obligations under the Charter. 110. The Commission notes that after their arrest and detention, which has already been determined to have violated the provisions of Article 6 of the Charter, the Complainants were all released within three days. The Commission also notes that no formal charges were brought against the Complainants. The Commission consequently considers that a violation of Article 7 of the Charter cannot be sustained on the basis of the facts adduced by the Complainants. 111. Regarding the incompatibility of some of the provisions of the National Security Act with Sudan's obligations under the Charter, the Commission observes that it has not been shown that the Complainants were detained in application of this law. The Compatibility of the law with Sudan's obligation under the Charter cannot therefore be called into question in the present Communication. 14