.159. In their application, the Applicants assert that by failing to undertake an effective investigation to prosecute and sentence those responsible for the assassination of Norbert Zongo, “Burkina Faso had violated the right ... to equal protection of the law as provided for in paragraph 2, article 3 of the Charter’. 160. In their response on the merits, the Applicants stated in this regard as follows: “Because trial has always been a catalyst for and an expression of justice, the right to fair trial has always been considered as a right ‘crucial to the protection of all other basic rights and freedoms’...because it allows for effective and equal access to justice. In the instant case, neither one nor the other was possible...” (Italics added). 161. Referring to a provision of article 14 of the ICCPR [“All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals’], the Applicants maintained that “Burkinabé tribunals did not, in managing the Norbert Zongo case, as in many other cases with serious political overtones, demonstrate the same diligence as they do in criminal matters’. 162. The Applicants complain in particular that Burkinabé justice did not act expeditiously in its treatment of the case of Zongo and others, whereas it did act and dispose of another contemporary matter - the case of David Ouédraogo - with exemplary swiftness. After establishing a link on this issue, between the Zongo case and another case where the procedure was equally slow - the case of Thomas Sankara-, the Applicants came to the conclusion that “such practices by Burkinabé courts therefore constituted a violation of the right to equality inherent in article 7 of the African Charter ...and article 14 (1) of the ICCPR’. 163. At the Public Hearing of 28 November 2013, the Applicants restated that position. 164. At the Public Hearing of 28 November 2013, the Respondent State argued that the Zongo case was more complex and could not be compared to that of David Ouédraogo because in the latter case, those responsible for the assassination were known and preliminary investigations were not required to identify them. The Respondent insisted on this point by declaring that: “...what the Court should note is that these are cases that should not be compared. David Ouédraogo was detained and 45 a ow Bi