001072 111. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the Respondent State has violated the Applicant’s right to liberty contrary to Article 6 of the Charter. iii. Alleged violation of the Applicant’s right to freedom of movement 112. The Applicant avers that the right to freedom of movement is a fundamental human right recognised under international human rights instruments such as the UDHR, ICCPR and other human rights instruments, including the Charter. He maintains that this right involves not only movement within the country but also protection from forced expulsion or displacement. 113. The Applicant also submits that according to Article 12(1) and (2) of the Charter, every individual has the right to move freely within a country, the right to leave the same, including his or hers, and return to it, subject only to restrictions provided by law and required for the protection of national security. The Applicant avers that he has neither threatened the Respondent State’s public order nor breached Article12 of the Charter. 114. In this respect, the Applicant Défense des Droits de l'Homme cites the matter of Rencontre Africaine pour la v Zambia wherein the Commission stressed that Article 12 of the Charter imposes an obligation on the contracting State to secure the rights protected under the Charter for all parties within their jurisdiction, nationals or non-nationals alike. 115. The Applicant submits that while he is a Tanzanian national by birth and thus, has the right to freedom of movement, including the right to leave and return to his country, the law, as reflected in the Commission’s decisions in the above-mentioned case, protects both nationals and non-nationals. He also asserts that as a citizen of the Respondent State, he is entitled to enjoy fully his rights and should not have been arrested or unlawfully detained. He avers further that his conviction and sentence to ar yore SETS