Kennedy Gihana v Republic of Rwanda C Were the Applicants’ Rights to Freedom of Movement, Political Participation, Citizenship, Liberty, Family and Work Violated? On the right to freedom of movement, the Court followed its ruling in Anudo that there are few, if any, circumstances in which deprivation of the right to enter one's own country could be reasonable. A State Party must not, by stripping a person of nationality or by expelling an individual to a third country, arbitrarily prevent this person from returning to his or her own country. 26 By arbitrarily revoking the applicants’ passports, the respondent state deprived the applicants of their travelling documents, which resulted in them being prevented from ‘returning to their country and travelling to other countries and thus exercising their right to freedom of movement as provided under art 12(2) of the African Charter’. 27 With regards to the right to political life, the Court noted that the rights set out in art 13(1) of the African Charter are mainly exercised when citizens are the territory of their state. 28 However, there are certain rights that can be exercised outside the territory of the state. The Court noted that the arbitrary revocation of the applicants’ passports prevented them from returning to the respondent state, severely restricting their right to freely participate in the government of their country. 29 On their rights to liberty, the applicants linked this form of violation to the issue of prolonged detention without trial as set out in art 6 of the African Charter. 30 The Court noted that art 6 of the African Charter refers to a situation of prolonged detention without trial. 31 The standards in art 6 require a person to be brought promptly before a judge and to be tried within a reasonable time. 32 In this case, the applicants made general statements regarding the alleged violation of their rights to liberty. 33 They did not provide evidence to establish that the respondent state has arbitrarily deprived them of their liberty contrary to the aforementioned provisions. 34 When it came to the violation of the right to family life, the Court was of the view that the applicants did not demonstrate: how the Respondent State’s actions or omissions had an adverse impact on the needs and interests of their families or how it prevented them from fully benefitting 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Anudo (n 3) 21 [98], citing Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement), UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (2 November 1999) [21]. Kennedy (n 1) 24–25 [105]–[109]. ibid 26 [114]. African Charter (n 3) art 13(1) provides that: ‘Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law’. Kennedy (n 1) 26 [114]. African Charter (n 3) art 6 provides that: 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 law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained. Kennedy (n 1) 27 [119]. ibid. ibid 27 [120]. ibid. 335