VI. RESPONDENTS’ CASE: a. Respondents’ summary of facts: 36.The Respondents’ accounts of events commencing from the accusations of judicial impropriety against the Applicant by two members of the House and his subsequent impeachment, trial and conviction by the Senate leading to his removal from office are not different from the Applicant’s narration of facts set out supra. 37.The Respondents, in their joint memorial of defence to the Applicant’s suit contended that there is absolutely no basis whether in law or in fact, to support the filing of the present suit by the Applicant as his entire accusal, trial, conviction and removal from office were all supported by and consistent with the relevant substantive and procedural laws of the 1 st Respondent State particularly all the rights, privileges and benefits of due process of law and an impartial trial. 38.The Respondents denied violating the human rights of the Applicant and submitted that his impeachment was done through a political process which also followed the due process of law as laid down in Section 43 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia. 39.The Respondents juxtaposed their impeachment processes with that of the United States of America and further urged and “requested the Court to take judicial notice of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump” to justify that the impeachment trial of the Applicant followed the due process and procedure laid down by the 1st Respondent State’s laws. 17