Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention In other words, remand in custody pursuant to lawful arrest must not only be “lawful” but also “reasonable” and “necessary” in all the circumstances for the aforementioned purposes. It is for the State party concerned to show that these factors are present in the particular case.13 The Mukong case In the case of Mukong, the applicant alleged that he had been arbitrarily arrested and detained for several months, an allegation rejected by the State party on the basis that the arrest and detention had been carried out in accordance with the domestic law of Cameroon. The Committee concluded that article 9(1) had been violated, since the author’s detention “was neither reasonable nor necessary in the circumstances of the case”.14 For instance, the State party had not shown that the remand in custody was “necessary ... to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime” but had “merely contended that the author’s arrest and detention were clearly justified by reference to” article 19(3) of the Covenant, which allows for restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.15 However, the Committee considered that “national unity under difficult political circumstances cannot be achieved by attempting to muzzle advocacy of multi-party democracy, democratic tenets and human rights”, and that the author’s right to freedom of expression had therefore been violated.16 Consequently, the Committee also concluded that the author’s arrest and detention were contrary to article 9(1) of the Covenant.17 In a case where a victim had been held in detention for about 16 months with a view to forcing him to disclose the whereabouts of his brother, the Committee considered that he had been subjected to “arbitrary arrest and detention” contrary to article 9, there being no other criminal charge laid against him.18 Clearly, when a person is arrested without warrant or summons and then simply kept in detention without any court order, this also amounts to a violation of the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention set forth in article 9(1).19 In some cases dealt with by the Committee, persons have been kept in detention contrary to article 9(1) of the Covenant without any court order, simply on grounds of their political opinions.20 13 Communication No. 305/1988, H. van Alphen v. the Netherlands (Views adopted on 23 July 1990), in UN doc. GAOR, A/45/40 (vol. II), p. 115, para. 5.8; emphasis added. 14 Communication No. 458/1991, A. W. Mukong v. Cameroon (Views adopted on 21 July 1994), in UN doc. GAOR, A/49/40 (vol. II), p. 181 para. 9.8. 15 Ibid., loc. cit. 16 Ibid., p. 181, para. 9.7. 17 Ibid., para. 9.8. 18 Communication No. 16/1977, D. Monguya Mbenge et al. v. Zaire (Views adopted on 25 March 1983), in UN doc. GAOR, A/38/40, p. 140, paras. 20-21. 19 Communication No. 90/1981, L. Magana ex-Philibert v. Zaire (Views adopted on 21 July 1983), in UN doc. GAOR, A/38/40, p. 200, paras. 7.2 and 8. 20 See, for example, Communication No. 132/1982, M. Jaona v. Madagascar (Views adopted on 1 April 1985), in UN doc. GAOR, A/40/40, p. 186, para. 14. 166 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers