As for Rule 41 of the same or during the course of the Rules, it provides in turn that "the Court may, before proceedings, call on the parties to file any pertinent document or to provide any relevant explanations. The Court shall formally note any refusal to comply". Finally, it follows from Rule 45 of the said Rules that "the Court may, either on its own motion or at the request of a party or, where appropriate, of the representatives of the Commission, obtain any evidence which it deems relevant to the facts of the case. It may, notably, ......... " It is apparent from paragraph 139 of the Judgment that the Court confirmed that it had established the Applicant's alleged right to free legal assistance and the right to be tried within a reasonable time. However, in paragraphs 142 and 143, the Court dismissed the Applicant's claims for material damages on the ground that he had not adduced any evidence of the alleged damages with documents proving financial income from his occupation, payments to the Advocate, costs of proceedings and the like, However, it is not apparent from the reasons for the judgment that, in accordance with the above-mentioned articles, the Court asked the Applicant to submit the documents proving the harm suffered, thereby failing to comply with the rule requiring it to adduce reasons for its judgments. Moreover, in relation to the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the indirect victims, the Court also considered the lack of evidence in relation to the Applicant's allegations, as it had not proved the identification or filiation of the indirect victims. in my opinion, this approach is contrary to the spirit of the above-mentioned instruments and to the positive role that a judge must play for the proper administration of justice. It is worthy to mention in this respect that the application was registered on 19 January 2015 and that between 6 July 2018 and September 2019, the Respondent State had already raised this lack of evidence on the part of the Applicant and that on the closing date of the reparations proceedings, 29 September 2019, the Court could have responded by asking the Applicant to file the documents. If such a request had not been complied with, the Court would have based the dismissal of the applications on Rule 41 of the Rules.