case between the Applicants and the Public Prosecutor's Office in the national courts, particularly the Court of First lnstance of Bamako District V, since the case was referred to the latter so that it could be disposed of, as regards civil damages. 46.|n the instant case, the Court notes that the time that elapsed between 24 March, 2014, and 1 July, 20166, the date on which the case was brought to it, corresponds to the period when the Court was awaiting the Applicants' medical evidence so as to assess the harm and quantify the reparation. the above elements, the Court holds that the Applicants have contributed to the delay in the proceedings they allege are unduly protonged.T They should have helped to speed up the proceedings by producing early 47. Considering enough, the evidence for reparation of the damages they are claiming. 48' The Court therefore dismisses the Applicants' contention that local proceedings have been unduly prolonged. B. on the alleged inefficiency of the remedies before the court of Appeal 49. The Applicants also contend that the remedy before the Court of Appeal is insufficient given that it offers no prospect of re-classification of the offence as a case of attempted murder with premeditation rather than assault and battery; that the State Prosecutor's Office should first have sought medical evaluation to determine the level of incapacitation to work suffered by the victims before proceeding with classification of the facts. u Date on which the court of Appeal referred the case back to the court of First lnstance Bamako District V, 7 See Application No. OO1I2O12, Ju dgment of 28 t\Zt 2014: Frank David Omary and Others v .united Republic of Tanzania, g 133 to 135. http://www. af rican-cou rt. orq 11 v ,/) 4