Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has held that the failure or negligence on the part of the security agents of a State party “scrupulously” to comply with the requirement to submit reasons for arrest and to inform the persons arrested promptly of any charges against them is a violation of the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the African Charter.99 Article 6 of the African Charter was violated where the complainant was arrested in the interest of national security under the Preventive Custody Law of 1992 in Ghana; he was, however, never charged with any offence and never stood trial.100 In a case against the Sudan, the Commission also explained that article 6 of the African Charter “must be interpreted in such a way as to permit arrests only in the exercise of powers normally granted to the security forces in a democratic society”; since the wording of the relevant Decree allowed “individuals to be arrested for vague reasons, and upon suspicion, not proven acts”, it was “not in conformity with the spirit of the African Charter” and violated article 6 thereof.101 ***** With regard to article 5(2) of the European Convention, the European Court has held that it “contains the elementary safeguard that any person arrested should know why he is being deprived of his liberty. This provision is an integral part of the scheme of protection afforded by Article 5: by virtue of paragraph 2 any person arrested must be told, in simple, non-technical language that he can understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest, so as to be able, if he sees fit, to apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness in accordance with paragraph 4. ... Whilst this information must be conveyed ‘promptly’ (in French: ‘dans le plus court délai’), it need not be related in its entirety by the arresting officer at the very moment of the arrest. Whether the content and promptness of the information conveyed were sufficient is to be assessed in each case according to its special features.”102 It is thus not sufficient for the purpose of complying with article 5(2) that the arresting officer simply tells the persons concerned that they are arrested under a particular law on suspicion of being terrorists, although it has been considered to be sufficient if “the reasons why they were suspected of being terrorists were ... brought to their attention during their interrogation” by the police; they must consequently be interrogated in sufficient detail “about their suspected involvement in specific criminal acts and their suspected membership of proscribed organisations”.103 99 ACHPR, Huri-Laws (on behalf of the Civil Liberties Organisation) v. Nigeria, Communication No. 225/98, decision adopted during the 28th Ordinary Session, 23 October – 6 November 2000, paras. 43-44 of the text of the decision as published at: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/225-98.html. 100 ACHPR, Alhassan Abubakar v. Ghana, Communication No. 103/93, decision adopted during the 20thsession, October 1996, paras. 9-10 of the text of the decision as published at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/103-93.html; like other international monitoring organs, where the respondent Government does not provide any substantive information in reply to the petitioners’ allegations, the African Commission will decide the facts as alleged by the complainant; ibid., para. 10. 101 ACHPR, Amnesty International and Others, Communications Nos. 48/90, 50/91, 52/91 and 89/93, (decision not dated), para. 59 of the text published at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/48-90_50-91_52-91_89-93.html. 102 Eur. Court HR, Case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A, No. 182, p. 19, para. 40; emphasis added. 103 Ibid., para. 41. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 183