76. Where abuse does occur, State Parties are also under an obligation to initiate a prompt, impartial and effective investigation in order to bring the perpetrators to justice as well as to afford redress to the victims. 77. From all indications, the Respondent State failed to uphold these standards and the Commission finds as a consequence that there was a violation of Article 5 of the Charter. Alleged violation of Article 6 78. Article 6 of the African Charter provides as follow: Every individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained. 79. The Commission observes that the right to liberty as enshrined in the Charter does not grant complete freedom from arrest or detention, given that deprivation of liberty is one of the legitimate forms of state control over persons within its jurisdiction. However, any arrest or detention must be carried out in accordance with the procedure established by domestic law otherwise; such arrest would be considered to be arbitrary.27 The Commission observes also that any such domestic law or procedure must meet the requisite international standards in order for it to be considered valid. 80. The facts as outlined above reveal that the arrest of the victim had no basis in Sudanese legislation which requires that a person must have been suspected or accused of committing an offence before a warrant of arrest may be issued. The victims were indiscriminately arrested en masse without any measures taken to ascertain the likelihood that they had individually been involved in the commission of an offence. The Commission considers that arresting a large number of individuals as was the case in the present communication, in disregard of domestic legislation and without taking any measures to ascertain the likelihood of individual wrongdoing amounts to arbitrary arrest in contravention of the Charter. 81. The Complainants have also submitted that the detention of the victims was unlawful under Sudanese legislation given that the length of detention exceeded the prescribed duration under the Sudanese Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for a maximum of two weeks of detention without charge. In the case of the victims, they were held in detention for over 12 months without charge. 82. The Commission has established in its Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa and in the Robben Island Guidelines that anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his/her arrest and shall be promptly informed, in a language he/she understands, of any charges against him/her.28 83. Detaining the victims for a period of twelve months before bringing charges against them was therefore not only unlawful under Sudanese legislation, but also contravened the standards laid down by the Commission 84. It follows that the deprivation of the victim's liberty and their subsequent detention without charge for a period of twelve months was unlawful and arbitrary and the Commission considers as a consequence that there was a violation of Article 6 of the Charter. Alleged violation of Article 7 85. The Complainants submit that the conduct of the respondent state violated the provisions of Article 7 (1) (c) and(d). This provision guarantees the right of every individual to have his cause heard, the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of one's choice, and the right to be tried within a reasonable time. 86. Regarding the right to be heard, it is a clearly established norm that anyone who is deprived of his/her liberty through arrest or detention is entitled to initiate proceedings before a judicial body in order that the judicial body may decide without delay on the lawfulness of the arrest or detention. 87. The Commission's Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa provide that ''judicial bodies shall at all times hear and act upon petitions for habeas corpus...or similar procedures. No circumstances whatever must be invoked as a justification for denying the right to habeas corpus...'' The Commission has also established in Purohit v The Gambia that '' ... in circumstances where persons are to be detained, such persons should at the very least be presented with the opportunity to challenge the matter of their detention before the competent jurisdictions that should have ruled on their detention''29 88. From the Complainant's submissions, the victims were denied habeas corpus, thereby preventing them from having the opportunity of inquiring into the lawfulness of their detention. They were only brought 9