oo0"0to 119. The Court notes that the provision relates to the issue of prolonged detention without trial and that this situation is considered as arbitrary. The standards espoused in this right require that a person who is charged with an offence should be brought promptly before a judge or other judicial officers and should be tried within a reasonable time or released. A person who is charged with an offence also has the right to access a court, to challenge the lavtrfulness of his or her detention.2T 120. The Court notes that the Applicants have made general statements as regards the alleged violation of their rights to liberty. They have not provided evidence to establish that the Respondent State has arbitrarily deprived them of their liberty contrary to the afore-mentioned provisions. The Court has held that it does not suffice to make such general claims, rather, there should be a demonstration of how the rights have been violated.2s 121.|n light of the foregoing, the Court therefore dismisses the Applicants'claim as having not been established. v Allegation relating to violation of the right to family life 122.fhe Applicants allege that by revoking their passports, the Respondent State has violated their right to family life. 123. The Respondent State has not responded to this allegation 124. The Court notes that Article 18 (1) and (2)of the Charter provides 27 Communication 416112 Jean-Marie Atangana Mebara v Cameroon SS 119-131 2e Alex Thomas v Tanzania (merits) (2015) I AfCLR 465 S 140. 27 \ @- LON