judicial authority decides that the detention is unlawful, individuals have the right to release without delay.”79 268. In Patrick Okiring and Agupio Samson) v. Uganda, the Commission stressed that “[s]uch a right would be ineffective if the decision of the judicial authority was not binding on the executive.”80 Moreover, the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (the Principles and Guidelines on the Rights to Fair Trial),81 provides that ”[a]ny form of detention and all measures affecting the human rights of a person arrested or detained shall be subject to the effective control of a judicial or other authority”82 269. 270. The submissions in the instant Communication reveal that the Courts of the Respondent State requested the release of the Victim in at least 15 instances, but the Minister of Interior circumvented the release orders issued by the Courts. 271. The Commission has previously held that “[w]here 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.”83 The Commission further stated that the subsequent arrest and detention of the victims after they had been granted bail was arbitrary and unlawful and outside the permissible limitation to the right to personal liberty.84 272. In the present Communication, the Commission is of the view that the Victim’s detention was not under the effective control of a judicial authority, as the Minister of Interior could order the detention of the Victim as well as get round the court release orders. In effect, although the Minister was a member of the Executive, the Minister was acting in lieu of the appropriate judicial authority. b. Detention was unjust and not based on any predictable legal regime 273. The Complainants submit that the detention of the Victim was not based on any legitimate purpose set out in law, but was unpredictable and lacked due process. The Complainants submit that the Emergency Law: is vague and overbroad in defining persons who may be detained under the law; does not require officials to identify specific reasons for arrest and detention, nor require the detainee to be officially charged or brought to trial; and there is no maximum time limit for administrative detention. 79 Luanda Guidelines, Principle 35. Communication 339/2007 - Patrick Okiring and Agupio Samson (represented by Human Rights Network and ISIS-WICCE) v. Uganda (2017) ACHPR para 105. 81 The Commission adopted the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial in 2001, to supplement Articles 5, 6, 7, and 26 of the African Charter. 82 Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial, M (2) (h). 83 Patrick Okiring and Agupio Samson v. Uganda (n80 above), para 110. 84 As above, para 111. 80 43