114. The Commission holds the view that even if the State was fighting alleged terrorist activities, it was not justified to subject victims to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and treatment. It therefore finds that the Respondent State violated Article 5 of the African Charter. Alleged violation of Article 6 115. The communication further gives details of victims who were arrested, detained for days, sometimes for months without trial before being released in violation of Article 6 of the Charter. 116. The Respondent State did not deny the allegations instead it tried to justify them. For instance, it states that: “…concerning citizens who had been arrested for committing various ordinary law offences since the return to multi party democratic processes, most of them are SCNC and SCAPO activists who, in their logic of contestation, defied republican institutions especially the forces of law and order, either during demonstration of the anniversary of “Southern Cameroon” every 1 October of the year, or at the approach, during and after important elections.” 117. It goes on to state that, “whatever the circumstances, the more it is true that every individual shall have the right to liberty and the security of his person, the more it is accepted that an individual may be deprived of his freedom for reason and conditions previously laid down by the law. (Article 6 of the Charter) The cases of arrest registered since the return to multiparty politics in this part of the territory has always obeyed the principle of legality…”. 118. The Commission states that a State Party cannot justify violations of the African Charter by relying on the limitation under Article 6 of the Charter. The Respondent State is required to convince the Commission that the measures or conditions it had put in place were in compliance with Article 6 of the Charter. The Commission has previously expressed itself on the effect of claw back 12 clauses. Communication 211/98 Legal Resources Foundation/Zambia, states the following; “The Commission has argued forcefully that no State Party to the Charter should avoid its responsibility by recourse to the limitations and “claw back” clauses in the Charter. It was stated following developments in other jurisdictions, that the Charter cannot be used to justify violations of sections of it. The Charter must be interpreted holistically and all clauses must reinforce each other. The purpose or effect of any limitation must also be examined, as the limitation of the right cannot be used to subvert from the popular will, as such cannot be used to limit the responsibilities of State Parties in terms of the Charter.” 119. Further to the foregoing, communication 147/95 and 149/96, Sir Dawda Jawara/The Gambia, the Commission stated that, “[t]he Commission in its decision on communication 101/93 laid down a general principle with respect to freedom of association, that ‘competent authorities should not enact provisions which limit the exercise of this freedom. The competent authorities should not override constitutional provisions or undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by constitution or international human rights standards.’ This therefore applies not only to right to freedom of expression of association, but also to all other rights and freedoms … for a State to avail itself of this plea, it must show that such a law is consistent 13 with its obligations under the Charter.” 120. In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 6 as alleged by the Complainants. Alleged violation of Article 7(1) 121. The Complainants alleged that the Respondent State violated Article 7.1, on the right to fair trial. They allege that individuals were transferred from Southern Cameroon to Francophone Cameroon for trial by military tribunals and that other victims were tried in civil law courts, without interpreters. 122. The Respondent State admits that between 1997 and 2001, some individuals were transferred from the North West Cameroon, and were tried for various criminal offences by the Yaoundé Military Tribunal. These offences include unlawful incitement, disturbances of public peace, destruction of public property, assassination of gendarmes and civilian individuals, illegal possession of weapons