Defendant State brought proof for the diligent steps taken, as well as the goodwill of the political authorities in Guinea - Bissau. Now, none of these was brought before the Court, while the Defendant State only contented itself with making «general affirmations. » On the other hand, since the assassination of President Vieira occurred in 2009 – that is more than nine (9) years now -, the Court holds that the judicial investigations should have already made some decisive findings, over the period, even if they have not yet ended. Everything points to the fact that no significant progress was made, and, in the final analysis, this non-productivity compromises the right to justice, as well as that of having fair hearing, while the notion of « reasonable period » also intervenes, at this juncture as a more or less indicator of the reality of the right under discussion. It is certain that the heirs of President Vieira have not, up till today, benefited from the possibility of having their cause heard by a tribunal to obtain reparation for the prejudice they suffered, but also, to know the truth of the circumstances the victim died. In this regard, it is noteworthy to emphasis that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was cited by Plaintiff/Applicant does not only provide for the right to justice, but equally makes it mandatory, for the States, at the same time, to respect the victim’s right« to be tried without unnecessary delay » (article 14, 2. c). In the same manner, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights expressly provides for the exigencies of having access to justice « within reasonable time » (article 7.1 d.). Finally, it is allowed to examine the pertinence of the Defendant State’s argument on political and institutional instability, which it held to be justification for the observed delay. Without wanting to discuss the details of such an excuse, the Court recalls, as a way of playing down the 14