June 1991, except where Information Code”; they contravened the ethics of the profession as set out in the that Norbert Zongo ‘whose pen was rather sharp against the Government, had never been subjected to any disciplinary or legal action’; and that the Weekly “L’Indépendant’ of which he was Director of Publication, and its newspapers had never been closed down or seized by Government officials”. 178. The Respondent concluded that, in view of the foregoing observations, the allegations, specifically those regarding violations of article 9(1) and (2) of the Charter, article 19 (2) of the ICCPR and article 66(2)(c) of the Revised ECOWAS Treaty, were unfounded. 179. At the Public Hearing of 28 November 2013, Respondent State further argues that since Norbert Zongo had never complained to the courts about the death threats against him, he was not entitled to special protection by the State, given the principle of equality of all citizens before the law. 180. The Court is of the view that in the instant case, article 66(2)(c) of the Revised ECOWAS Treaty and article 9 of the Charter on the alleged violation should be read jointly. Whereas the first deals with the rights of journalists in general, the second guarantees their freedom of expression in particular. Against this background, according to the allegations guaranteed made by the Applicants, the rights of journalists which should be by the Respondent State are specifically the right to life and the right to freedom of expression. 181. Regarding the right to life, the Applicants allege that the Respondent had failed in its obligation to prevent and to protect Norbert Zongo against the death threats which he stated he had received. 182. However, the Court had, in its Ruling of 21 June 2013 on the preliminary objections, already recognized that it does not have jurisdiction rationae temporis to hear the allegation of “violation of the right to life based on the assassination on 13 December 49 L oC Ne ~ al