person who holds the information to make it public in order to allow individuals to make informed decisions.12 76. In the instant case, the issue that arises is whether, at the time of assessing the entitlements accruing from the expropriation of land, the information on the rights to compensation and reparation was available and accessible to the Applicants to enable them accurately assess their rights guaranteed by Decree No. 96-884 of 25 October 1996. 77. The Court notes that Decree No. 96-884 of 25 October 1996 on expropriation rights was published in the Official Gazette on 14 November 1996. The Court also notes that the amount accruing from the expropriation of the Applicants’ land was first fixed by the Tribunal of First Instance of Yopougon in its Judgment of 13 January 2003 at the end of judicial proceedings in which the Applicants were assisted by two lawyers. In this regard, the Court notes that between the date of publication of the Decree of 25 October 1996 and the judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of Yopougon, a period of at least seven (7) years elapsed. The Court considers that the information requested by the Applicants was available and accessible to all, including their lawyers, and that the Respondent State can therefore not be held accountable for the consequences of the Applicants not exercising their right to compensation before domestic courts. 78. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants’ right to information under Article 9(1) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to have their cause heard 79. The Applicants allege that after the 13 July 2007 judicial decision in their favour and the dismissal on 9 April 2009 of the cassation appeal lodged by AGEF, the Respondent State embarked on a series of acts to thwart the execution of the decision upholding their right to compensation. The 12 Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (merits) (2017) 2 AfCLR 165, § 132. 19