“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 the law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained.” 49. Communication 222/98 alleges that the plaintiffs were arrested and detained without being told the reason for their arrest and without charge. The Complainant submits that their arrest was illegal and was not based on the legislation in force in the country and that their detention without access to their lawyers was a violation of the norms which prohibit inhuman and degrading treatment and provide for the right to fair trial. 50. The Respondent State confirms that the detainees submitted their application contesting their arrest and treatment received during their detention. However, the Respondent State indicates that the plaintiffs did not follow the lengthy procedure required for the restoration of their rights and that, accordingly, the court rejected the said application by decision no. M/A/AD/1998. It should be stressed particularly that the Respondent State does not dispute that the victims were arrested without being charged. This is a prima facie violation of the right not to be illegally detained as provided for by Article 6 of the African Charter. 51. The Complainant alleges that Article 7 (1) of the African Charter was violated, in that it stipulates that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: (a) The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in use; (b) The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal; (c) The right to defense, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; (d) The right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal.” 52. All these provisions are inter-linked and when the right to have one’s cause heard is violated, other acts of violations may also be committed such that the detentions become illegal and are detrimental to the proceedings of a fair trial in the proper form. 53. Furthermore, in terms of form, the fact that the decisions of the military court are not subject to appeal and that civilians are brought to a military court constitutes a de jure procedural irregularity. Additionally, to prevent the submission of an appeal to competent national courts violates Article 7 (1) (a) and increases the risk of not redressing the procedural defects. 54. In the communication under consideration, the Complainant alleges that the victims were declared guilty in public by investigators and highly placed government officers. It is alleged that the government organised wide publicity around the case, with a view to convincing the public that there had been an attempted coup and that those who had been arrested were involved in it. The government showed open hostility towards the victims by declaring that “those responsible for the bombings” will be executed. 55. The Complainant alleges that in order to reconstitute the facts, the military court forced the victims to act as if they were committing crimes by dictating to them what to do and those pictures were filmed and used during the trial. It is claimed that the authorities attested to the guilt of the accused on the basis of these confessions. The African Commission has no proof to show that these officers were the same as those who presided over or were part of the military court that tried the case. These pictures were not presented to the African Commission as proof. In such conditions, the African Commission cannot carry out an investigation on the basis of non-established proof. 56. However, the African Commission condemns the fact that State officers carried out the publicity aimed at declaring the suspects guilty of an offence before a competent court establishes their guilt. Accordingly, the negative publicity by the government violates the right to be presumed innocent, guaranteed by Article 7 (1) (b) of the African Charter. 57. As shown in the summary of facts, the Complainants did not get permission to get assistance from counsel and those who defended them were not given sufficient time nor access to the files to prepare their defense. 58. The victims’ lawyer, Ghazi Suleiman, was not authorised to appear before the court and despite several attempts, he was deprived of the right to represent his clients or even contact them.