54' Therefore, in the absence of proof on the part of the Applicants that the indictment chamber would not produce the expected results, the Court dismisses the Applicants' argument in this respect. c. on the allegation regarding the inefficiency of the civil remedy 55.The Applicants contend that the Respondent State's justice system, by classiffing the offense as simple assault and battery without awaiting the opinion of the physician in charge, "shut the door'' to the claims to compensation for 60% incapacitation suffered by Mariam Kouma, as well as the loss of opportunities due to the incapacitation; that Mariam was thus rendered incapable of claiming the cost of her surgery and medicines, and of the physiotherapy she undenryent for treating the injuries inflicted on her by Boussourou. 56. The Applicants also argue that the fact that the State Prosecution had avoided conducting the appropriate criminal proceedings but rather undertook correctional proceedings, while ignoring young Ousmane Diabat6's status of victim - all represents proof that the local courts failed in their obligation to conduct thorough and impartial investigations. 57. The Applicants conclude that the local procedures hold no interest for the victims who are seeking a proper classification of the offence, punishment of the culprit commensurate with the crime committed and compensation that takes into account the sufferings endured by the Applicants. 58.The Respondent State refutes all the Applicants' allegations and states that it is because the Appeal Court took into account the civil claims of the Applicants that it referred the case to the trial Judge. *** 13 J) 4