regime, the Commission decided that it would not be proper to insist on the fulfilment of this requirement. For the above reasons, the Commission declared the case admissible. Merits 14. The Complainant alleges a violation of Article 3.2 of the Charter by the Respondent State. Article 3.2 provides: “Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law.” 15. The Commission finds that the rampant arrests and detention of Mr Kazeem Aminu by the Nigerian security officials, which eventually led to his going into hiding for fear of his life has deprived him of his right to equal protection of the law guaranteed under Article 3 of the Charter. 16. The Complainant had alleged that his client was tortured and subjected to inhuman treatment on several occasions by the Nigerian security operatives. The allegation has not been substantiated. In the absence of specific information on the nature of the acts complained of, the Commission is unable to find a violation as alleged. 17. The Complainant alleged that the series of arrests and detention suffered by his client, and his subsequent going into hiding is in violation of his right to life under Article 4 of the Charter. 18. The Commission notes that the Complainant's client (victim) is still alive but in hiding for fear of his life. It would be a narrow interpretation to this right to think that it can only be violated when one is deprived of it. It cannot be said that the right to respect for one's life and the dignity of his person, which this article guarantees would be protected in a state of constant fear and/or threats, as experienced by Mr Kazeem Aminu. The Commission therefore finds the above acts of the security agents of the Respondent State in violation of Article 4 of the Charter. Article 4 provides: Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right. 19. It is alleged that Mr Kazeem Aminu was arbitrarily arrested and detained on several occasions th between 1995 and the date of filing of this communication (11 July 1997). In his explanation, the Complainant asserts that he has resorted to the courts for protection, but to no avail, because of the provisions of Decree No. 2 of 1984 as amended. The Decree, it is alleged, like other decrees promulgated by the military regime, contains an ouster clause barring courts from entertaining proceedings relating to it. 20. It is the duty of the State Party to apprehend persons whom it reasonably believes have committed or are in the process of committing offences recognised by its laws. However, such arrests and/or detentions must be in accordance with known laws, which in turn must be in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. 21. In the instant case, the Commission finds the above situation where the Complainant's client is constantly arrested and detained, without charge and any recourse to the courts for redress arbitrary and in contravention of Article 6 of the Charter.Article 6 provides: Every individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of the 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. 22. The Complainant further alleged that the respondent state is in violation of Article 10.1 of the Charter, in that his client is being sought after by the Nigerian security agents as a result of his political belief that manifested itself in his involvement in the agitation for the validation of the annulled June th 12 elections. Article 10.1 provides: Every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law. 23. In considering the above, the Commission duly takes cognisance of the problem created as a result of the annulment of the elections in Nigeria and its earlier decision thereof (see decision on Communication 102/93. In the circumstance, the Commission finds the acts of the security agents towards Mr Kazeem Aminu in contravention of his right to free association guaranteed under Article 10.1 of the Charter. 24. Unfortunately, the government of Nigeria has not responded to the several requests from the Commission for its reaction to the communication.