The circumstances of the two cases remain rigorously comparable, and justify that the Court should reiterate its jurisprudence. Consequently, there is need to hold that the right to life of President Vieira was violated. b) On the second plea drawn from the violation of the right to fair hearing Whereas the main Plaintiff/Applicant also claimed that her right to fair hearing was violated by the Republic of Guinea –Bissau. The Court holds that there is no doubt that it is the responsibility of the State to ensure rigorously that the crime committed against President Vieira should not go unpunished. This obligation can concretely be interpreted by the resolve of the State to do everything possible leading to the manifestation of the truth, namely by carrying out judicial investigations, and holding a trial, so that on the one hand, the perpetrators of the crime can be identified and punished, and, on the other hand, the victims who have taken their case before the court can obtain reparation, all things been equal. In the instant case, it is not contested that since the assassination that occurred on 2 March 2009, the criminal procedure that the Defendant State claims to have initiated did not record any tangible progress. At no period during the trial has the Republic of Guinea - Bissau demonstrated or specified the steps taken, to ensure the diligent continuation of the judicial investigations. Certainly, the Defendant State claimed this delay was due to the political situation of the country, which is characterized by instability. The Court cannot be convinced by these justifications. Indeed, on the one hand, they were never supported by probing facts. The Court could have been persuaded, if the 13