19. Whereas, Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that: "Every accused person has a right to a fair hearing, during which he enjoys all the necessary guarantees for his defence" 20. The Plaintiffs add that, having been in detention, they could not participate efficiently and with confidence in the ongoing audit exercise, which marks a very important step in the preparation for their eventual trial. Moreover, the fact that only one case file was opened for nearly twenty indicted persons, constitutes a hindrance for their counsels to effectively have access to it and defend them efficiently. 21. To support their claim on the violation of the right of the pregnant woman, who is one of them, the Plaintiffs invoke certain Articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989, which provide that: "the child is entitled to assistance and special care ... He needs special protection and care, especially an appropriate legal protection, before and after birth that: "In all decisions concerning children, whether taken by the Courts ... the best interests of the child must be given primary consideration" (Art. 3) before deducing that the judicial protection of the child begins from the pregnancy, the moment the latter is confirmed. 22. Finally, the Plaintiffs invoke Article 30 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child of July 1990 which provides that: "The State Parties shall put in place a special treatment for Pregnant women and nursing mothers who are accused of, or found guilty of a penal offence... State Parties shall ensure that another punishment, different from jail apply..." 23. It thus shows that, even when pregnant women are found guilty of a penal offence, this Charter recommends that, "a punishment other than jail shall apply" When it has to do with a pregnant woman who has only been indicted, and who benefits from the principle of the presumption of innocence, the preventive detention should have been discarded. 24. That in the instant case, despite all the Medical Certificates on pregnancy produced, the Trial Judge did not consider the specific condition of Mrs. OBODJI Roselyne, rather, she was kept in preventive detention, thereby violating all international conventions entered into by the State of Côte d'Ivoire. 25. To conclude, Plaintiffs aver that the manner in which the Ivorian Political and Judicial Authorities have handled the case reveals that there was serious infringement to five series of their human rights, which are: - The violation of the principle of presumption of innocence; - An infringement on honour and reputation; - The violation of the rules of preventive detention; - An infringement on the right to fair hearing; - The violation of the rights of pregnant women and infants (particularly relating to Mrs. Obodji nee HOUSSOU AMELAN Roselyne's condition). 26. Plaintiffs therefore want the Court to: - Admit the Application of Mr. AMOUZOU Henri and five others, as filed within the legal norms; - Declare that they have ground; - Order their immediate temporary release; - Condemn the State of Côte d'Ivoire, as to the cost of Six hundred Million CFA Francs, for the reparation of the prejudice that they have suffered. III. The Defendant's Arguments 27. Having been served notice of the Application, the State of Côte d'Ivoire filed its defence on 16th April, 2009. It avers that it is a democratic State that gives due respect to the principle of the separation of powers, the respect to, and protection of fundamental liberties, whether collective or individual. As proof of 4