On the violation on the right of presumption of innocence 76. To illustrate the violation of the right of the presumption of innocence, the Applicants aver that some information outfits in the country namely the state owned Television Station and the Government Daily Fratemite Matin portrayed them as potential culprits and that "heads shall roll. 77. In regard to the alleged grievance, following the publicity made by the media outfits, the Court holds that the Applicants do not establish the link between the News Items made public and the journalistic treatment by the media outfits, talk less of any potential liability of the State of Côte d'Ivoire. 78. In any case, the news that was published, relating to the ongoing investigation, wherein the Applicants were portrayed as presumed guilty by the press, was done in the strict exercise of the right or the freedom of information. Even if such has infringed upon their honour and reputation, there is no way the State of Côte d'Ivoire could be held responsible for this. The Court wishes to recall its jurisprudence in the case of Hadijatou Mani Koraou against the Republic of Niger (ECW/CCJ/JUD/04/08 paragraph 71 of 27/10/ 08) where the Court states that "... if the complaint drawn from discrimination - to which the Applicant lays claim for the first time before the Court - is founded, that violation is not attributable to the Republic of Niger but rather to El Hadj Souleymane Naroua, who is not party to the instant proceedings". 79. The Court does not loose sight of the fact that the broadcast made by the press, of the facts of the case under investigation, or of the judgement, with a view to portraying the suspects as guilty before hand, could give credence to a general predisposition that could lead to a judgement based on culpability, and thus, could have effect on the principle of presumption of innocence. Yet, for as long as the guarantees of the independence of the judiciary, and fair hearing could be given to the suspects, such an action from the press cannot become a liability for the State of Côte d'Ivoire. On the infringement on honour and reputation 80. The same analysis that the Court has made for the principle of presumption of innocence, also applies to the allegation of infringement on honour and reputation. 81. Indeed, the State of Côte d'Ivoire could only be held responsible, if by omission, it had not made laws that would protect the honour and reputation of citizens, and if it had not created the Courts, which the citizens could access, to enable them initiate proceedings, and enforce their rights. But, in the instant case, the Applicants have not imputed to the Defendant State, any omission. 82. Consequently, in the instant case, since the Applicants feel they have been wronged, following the journalistic handling of the case, it behoves them to lodge a complaint to the appropriate quarters, to hold the authors of the alleged violations responsible, either in civil or criminal suits. In the contrary, they cannot hold the State of Côte d'Ivoire responsible for a purported violation that they might have suffered, and which might have been committed by a third party. 83. On this issue too, their claim cannot prosper. On the Arbitrary Detention 84. The Applicants claim that they have been arbitrarily detained and were not given fair hearing. 85. The parties recognise the fact that the Applicants' detention was carried out, on the Order of a competent judicial authority of the Respondent State, namely the Doyen of Judges, as part of an investigation into a case of embezzlement or poor management of public funds, which, in general, constitute a crime of a certain gravity and punishable under the law. 86. Whether one relies on domestic law or on international instruments that the State of Côte d'Ivoire is committed to, preventive detention of indicted persons is allowed persons when verifying such facts. 87. The Applicants had an opportunity to challenge the reasons for that detention before a Court of Appeal in their country. Their appeal, having been stricken out in their country, the Court concludes accordingly that the Applicants' detention was based on legal grounds (on reasonable cause) and was carried out according to legally determined procedure in their country. Thus, the claim of the Applicants that their detention is arbitrary is unfounded. 88. Agreed, a detention may be initially free of observations, that is a lawful detention, yet, it can become thereafter, illegal, beyond a reasonable time-limit, by which the convict must be tried. 11