57. The Complainants submit that the operation of the police on 24 May 2005 was a mass arrest that targeted all residents of the Soba Aradi camp in an indiscriminate manner and was carried out irrespective of the availability of any evidence of individual wrongdoing. According to them, the arrest of such a large number of persons on the grounds that some or all of them might have been responsible for criminal acts finds no basis in Sudanese legislation according to which a person must have been "suspected, or accused of having committed an offence, in which an arrest warrant may be made."15 58. They point out that it is not apparent that the arrests were based on the existence of facts or information which would have satisfied an objective observer that the persons concerned may have committed the offence. There was no requisite sufficient prima facie evidence, as evidenced by the fact that most of the detainees were released on the grounds of a lack of evidence after they had been brought before a judge on 9 March 2006 and in the course of June and July 2006 respectively. The arrests were seemingly carried out as an act of revenge for the killing of the police officers' colleagues and the refusal to comply with the relocation orders, as indicated by the large number of arrested persons and the length of subsequent detention without charges. This conduct, according to the Complainants, constituted an abuse of process and was fundamentally unjust. 59. The Complainants also claim that the detention of the Victims was unlawful under Sudanese laws because the length of detention exceeded the limitation periods prescribed by the Sudanese Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for a maximum of two weeks of detention without any charges being brought. 16 . This according to them, constituted arbitrary detention, in violation of Article 6 of the Charter. Alleged violation of Article 7 60. According to the Complainants, the denial of habeas corpus, the lack of information about the grounds of arrest, the denial of access to a lawyer and the incommunicado detention of the victims violate the right to complain and to have one's case heard as guaranteed in article 7 of the Charter. 61. The Complainants point out that the victims were not brought before a judge until more than nine months after their arrest. They argue that there are no circumstances that would have prevented the authorities from bringing the applicants before a magistrate within a few days following the arrest. On the contrary, given the large number of arrested persons and the inherent risk that there were no sufficient grounds for the arrest and detention of at least some of the persons, it was all the more critical to bring all arrested individuals before a judge within the shortest possible time. The delay in so doing according to the Complainants was contrary to the requirements of the right to habeas corpus17 62. Regarding the right to be informed about the reasons for the arrest, it is submitted that the victims were arrested and detained on 24 May 2005 and thereafter were not informed about the reasons for their arrests. The applicants were also not informed of any charges against them as no charges were brought in the course of their detention. This, in the Complainant's view constituted a violation of the right to be informed about the reasons for their arrest. 63. The Complainants also submit that the victims were not given access to a lawyer until the 26 February 2006, i.e. for more than nine months, which violated their right to be defended by counsel of their choice. Instead, they were held incommunicado, in contravention of article 7 of the Charter and the standards and jurisprudence laid down by the Commission.18 Alleged violation of Article 1 64. The Complainants submit that Sudanese legislation does not effectively repress and/or prevent human rights violations. The legislation in place fails to protect against arbitrary arrest and detention.19 Equally, there are no adequate safeguards against torture and inhuman treatment. 20 The Criminal Procedure Code does not explicitly provide for a right to access a lawyer of one's choice at all stages of proceedings.21 Neither does it stipulate an explicit right to consult a doctor.22 . In addition, the law does not grant the right to habeas corpus. They submit further that Sudanese legislation does not provide sanctions and effective remedies in cases of breach. 65. According to them, the Respondent State has therefore failed in its positive obligation to recognise the rights, freedoms and duties guaranteed in the Charter and to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to them. 7