of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: - Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. - No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. 34. Finally, Article 9 × No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" Are the Above Mentioned Provisions Applicable to this Case? 35. The Court is aware that the arrest of the Applicants took place outside the territorial waters and far from the coast of the Federal republic of Nigeria, without legal authorization, after arrest of the Applicants on the 17th of July 2003 to the 1st of March 2004 can be justified by the necessity preliminary investigation to establish if the theft or transfer of Nigerian crude oil that the Applicants are accused of is founded or not. In other words, the Court is of the opinion that on the 1st of March 2004 when the Applicants were presented before the trial judge who ordered the release of five (5) among them, it was not unlawful; but if the Defendants do not contest the fact that the Applicants were arrested outside Nigerian territorial waters, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution of the ten (10) others and their continued detention till 30th November 2005 is not justified. However, such was the case as seen by the Federal High Court of Nigeria in her decision of 30th November 2005 declared that the Nigerian Court does have the jurisdiction and thus pronounced the released of the ten (10) other Applicants. Consequently, this decision by the Federal High Court of Nigeria on the 30th of November 2005 is analysed as the confirmation of the decision of the Judge on 1st of March 2004 who ask for the simple and pure release of the fifteen (15) Applicants. 36. Outside deciding to maintain the ten (10) Applicants among the fifteen (15) in detentions and their prosecution before the Federal High Court of Nigeria, on the grounds that these Applicants were dealing in crude oil without concrete evidence and disregard for the analysis of the expert, the Defendants are guilty of malice and unlawful arrest. This is why this Court concludes that the detention of the Applicants in March 2004 to 30th November 2005 is purely malicious and unlawful. Question 3: Are criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants by the defendants from the 1st of December 2003 to the 2nd of March 2004 unlawful and do they amount to the violation of their Human Rights? 37. This issue has already been resolved in the preceding consideration such that the Court is of the opinion that the detention of the Applicants during this period is justified by the necessity of the investigation. Consequently, the Court strikes out the claim of the Applicant on this point. Question 4: Does the refusal of the defendants to compensate the applicants for the dispossession and destruction of arrested vessel constitute a Human Rights violation in the sense of Article 21 (2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights? 38. During the debates the Court retained that the Applicants desisted from their claim on this point. There is room to grant the request to desist by the Applicants on this point. Question 5: Does the parading of the applicants before the world press as vandals and thieves of Nigerian crude oil constitute a violation of their rights with regard to their dignity of persons as entrenched 11