00{{0? 111. Accordingly, the Court, ruling on the basis of equity, finds that the Respondent State must take the necessary measures, including lifting forthwith the seizures of the Applicant's accounts and those of his family members. (b) Lifting of the ban on executing transactions in the accounts of AGROPLUS 112. The Applicant submits that following the money laundering proceedings instituted against AGROPLUS, the National Financial lnformation Processing Unit (CENI/F) objected to the execution of transactions in the accounts of the said company for a period of one year. On expiry, the Applicant claims to have requested, but did not obtain, the lifting of the ban on execution of transactions. However, on 2 May2018, the Examining Magistrate ordered the 14 banks concerned to extend the period of the ban on execution of transactions in the accounts opened in their books and belonging to AGROPLUS. The Applicant submits that this was a measure taken by the Respondent State with the intent to liquidate his property. 113. The Respondent State submits thatthe Applicant's claim lacks legal basis and asserts that it deserves to be dismissed. 114. The Court notes that the ban on the execution of transactions in the bank accounts opened in the name of AGROPLUS, ordered in2017 and extended in 2018, came just after the drug trafficking case which implicated the Applicant and is perceived as one of the direct consequences of the case. 1 15. To that end, it is noteworthy that in the instant case, several important services of the Respondent State, upon the commencement of the international drug trafficking case, initiated various proceedings relating in particular to the Applicant's companies 30