Society Institute and Interights) v. Angola, the Human Rights Committee defined arbitrariness in the context of arrest and detention as more than an action that goes against the law. The Human Rights Committee noted that arbitrariness also includes “elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law.”34 108. The Respondent State argues that its actions were permissible under Article 6 of the Charter as the purpose of the arrest of the Victims was to bring them before a court of law to answer an offence provided by law. The Commission has consistently held in its jurisprudence that the clause ‘laid down by law’ does not provide a blanket approval of any domestic law regardless of its effect. If so, States Parties to the Charter would be able to negate the rights conferred upon individuals by the Charter. The clause constitutes a reference to international law, meaning that only restrictions on rights which are consistent with the Charter and with States Parties’ international obligations should be enacted by the relevant national authorities.35 109. The Respondent State further argues that the arrest was in line with the duty of the State to ensure it independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. While accepting that the State has a right and duty to guarantee its security, the Commission must emphasise that the State remains subject to the provisions of the Charter. The exigencies of fighting terrorism cannot invalidate the protection afforded under Article 6.36 In the present case, the risk posed by the Victims to society and the risk of flight must have been taken into consideration by the High Court before the issue of the Bail Order, it is not for the Executive of the Respondent State to usurp the role of the Court. 110. Where a suspect is released on bail contrary to the wishes of the State, the State should not be allowed to deny bail and detain the individual by again arresting the suspect and bringing the latter under different charges before a different court. To allow the State to do so defeats the powers of the Court to grant bail and removes any judicial oversight over arrests and detentions. It is inappropriate, blatantly unjust and removes any element of predictability. A detainee having recourse to the Courts has a legitimate expectation that the order of the Court will be abided to by the State. 111. For these reasons, the Commission finds that the subsequent arrest and detention of the Victims after they had been granted bail was arbitrary and unlawful and therefore outside the permissible limitations to the right to personal liberty. The Commission finds the Respondent State in violation of Article 6 of the Charter. (iii) Violation of Article 7 34 Communication 1128/2002: Rafael Marques de Morais (represented by the Open Society Institute and Interights) v Angola (2005) Human Rights Council, para 6.1 35 Communication 275/03 : Article 19 v Eritrea (2007) ACHPR paras 91,92. 36 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Principles and Guidelines on Human and Peoples’ Rights while Countering Terrorism in Africa, Part 1(I), adopted during the 56th Ordinary Session in Banjul, The Gambia, from 21 April to 7 May 2015 19