in Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights? 39. The Applicants declared that during their detention, they were paraded before the world press in 2004 without real grounds; that they were regarded as thieves and vandals of Nigerian crude oil. That these defamatory acts brought disrepute to their dignity of human being and are contrary to Article 5 of the African Charter. Article 5 mentioned above provides that: "Every individual shall have 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... shall be prohibited" 40. The Court is of the opinion that for the fact that the Defendants presented the Applicants before the press when no judge or court has found them guilty, certainly constitute a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence such as provided in Article 7 (b) of the same African Charter and not a violation in the sense of Article 5 of the said Charter. Indeed, the Court is of the opinion that the Defendants employed language and an act of pure administrative publicity which should be condemned and which equally going beyond the framework of the preliminary investigation. Consequently, the claim of the Applicants on this point shall be granted. Question 6: Are the applicants entitled to the reparation of damages and interests flowing from the relative effect of their contract? 41. The Applicant claimed that they lost their employment as a result of their arrest and detention by the Defendants from July 2003 to November 2005; that as a result they can no longer claim their right to retirement and that the principle of mutuality of contract obliges the Defendants to compensate them by paying their salaries up to retirement in 2003 and even till 2005 date in which they are supposed to end their active service. 42. According to the argument of defence on the mutuality of contract, Learned Counsel to the Defendants contended that the Applicants claimed damages and interest base on the contract of employment which in no way has any relation to the Defendants. The Applicants discredited the position of the Defendants due to the fact that the claims are based on the damages suffered by the Applicants on the intervention of the Defendants and which brought about the end of their work contract. The doctrine of relative effect of contract has two elements such as: an individual who is not signatory to a contract cannot claim for compensation of this contract even when this contract must have been signed with the intention of profiting from this third party, and a third party cannot be linked to a contract that was not signed by him/her. In the case of DUNLOP v. SELFRIDGE 1915, the House of Lords averred that Selfridge cannot be related by the mutual effect of the contract signed between Dunlop and Dew, because it was not part of the said contract. 43. According to the principle of mutuality (relative effect), only the parties susceptible of being sued in relation to a contract, can be sued in respect of the said contract. Such is the case presented before this Court, it is the actions of the Defendants that are at the bases of termination of the contract of employment of the Applicants with their employer and even if the Defendants are not part of the contract, their actions having caused the termination of the said contract justifies the award of damages and interest. The other questions raised on the relative effect of the contract of employment. Seem to be misunderstood because the claim is not based on the contract, but on the damages suffered on the issue of tort (based on the civil responsibility of the Defendants). 44. On these grounds, the arguments of defence raised on this issue should be totally rejected in its entirety on this other point. On Damages and Interests due to the Applicants in Respect of their Human Rights Violation 45. The is trite that the payment of damages and interest in the violation of Human Rights is an acquired principle of which the evaluation varies from one court to another, whereby the Court may grant punitive, special or general damages and interest. Indeed, the principle whereby, "Any individual who is victim of 12