Alleged violation of Article 9 112. It is the Complainants' contention that their right to freedom of expression under Article 9 of the Charter was violated through the conduct of the Respondent State. Article 9 of the Charter provides that: every individual shall have the right to receive information 31 and the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law 32 . 113. The Commission notes the Complainants submission that they were arrested on account of their human rights work, specifically because of their perceived links with the office of the prosecutor of the ICC. The Commission also notes that the interrogation of the Complainants by NISS officials was essentially based on their links with the ICC and their human rights work. The Commission notes further that the measures taken against the Complainants were aimed at preventing them from obtaining and disseminating information about the situation of human rights in Sudan. 114. The Commission recalls that according to its Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa , freedom of expression and information, including the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other form of communication, including across frontiers, is a fundamental and inalienable human right and an indispensable component of democracy. 33 The Commission recognises that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities, which therefore in general allow for certain restrictions or limitations on the right. The Commission considers that any restrictions on freedom of expression must be provided by law, serve a legitimate interest and be necessary in a democratic society. 115. The Commission observes that in the present Communication, the only reason for which the Complainants were prevented from exercising this right was due to their perceived links with the ICC. It has not been shown that the Complainants' links with the ICC, if any, endangered the lives of others, national security, morality, common interest or caused any other legitimate prejudice. The Commission considers that there was therefore no justifiable reason to limit or interfere with the right to freedom of expression and finds as a consequence, a violation of Article 9(1) and (2) of the Charter. Alleged violation of Article 10 116. The Complainants contend that the campaign of harassment and intimidation to which Mr. Amir Suliman and the KCHRED of which he was a Director, the closure of the latter and the freezing of its bank accounts constitute a violation of Article 10 of the Charter. 117. Article 10 of the Charter provides that every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law... . 118. The Commission notes that the right to freedom of association is both an individual and collective right which allows individuals to join together to pursue and further collective interests in groups, such as NGOs, political parties and trade unions. This right comprises the right to form and join associations freely; any interference with this right must be prescribed by law and meet the conditions prescribed under Article 27 of the Charter, namely the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, collective security, morality and collective interests. The Commission considers, recalling its decisions in Huri Laws v Nigeria34 and Amnesty International v Zambia , 35 that any interference with this right that is not proportionate and cannot be justified under Article 27 of the Charter will be considered to be arbitrary. 119. In the present Communication, it appears that the only reason that KCHRED and its director were targeted was on account of their perceived links with the ICC. The Respondent State has not provided any information showing that the activities of the organization endangered national security, morality, or the rights of other people in Sudan. In the circumstances, the Commission considers that the State's interference with the activities of the organization and its staff was unjustifiable and arbitrary and finds a 15