48. Finally, Plaintiffs pleaded that the Court should kindly order their physical appearance, as well as that of the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission of Côte d'Ivoire, for them to be heard. Interim Order 49. The Court, Considering that, contrary to the provisions of Article 33, paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Rules of Procedure, no proof was added to the main Application by the Plaintiffs; but that the case was about being argued, has opted to consider the issues raised in the Ruling, and invited the parties to adopt their final conclusions. 50. Thus, Plaintiffs recalled the five series of human rights violation committed against them by the State of Côte d'Ivoire and reiterated their plea for reparation. 51. The State of Côte d'Ivoire, in turn, observed that three Plaintiffs have withdrawn from the case, while at the same time drawing the attention of the Court to the fact that a Member State was dragged before an International Court for a case of the violation of serious human rights with no proof to back that claim. 52. It thereafter concluded by raising the objection as to the incompetence of the Honourable Court, on the ground that the detention of the Plaintiffs was Ordered by National Judicial Authorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Legislation that allows for preventive detention. He further avers that the Plaintiffs had the opportunity to exercise their right of appeal, before the National Courts, which ruled that, "their detention remains a necessity for the manifestation of the truth". And that, in the instant case, the detention is not an arbitrary one, and that, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS, to hear facts of the case. 53. Upon these incidents, the Court has really decided a joinder, as to the merit, and opted to adjudicate as follows. V. Analysis of the Facts by the Court On the Jurisdiction of the Court 54. The jurisdiction of the Court is as defined in the Protocol A/P1/7/ 91, together with the amendments introduced by the Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 relating to the Court. Thus, pursuant to Article 9(4) of the said Supplementary Protocol, "The Court has jurisdiction to hear materially, cases relating to human rights violation that occur in any Member State of the Community". 55. Such competence which is recognised for the Court, in principle, it is now left for the Court to demonstrate, in concrete terms, if it has jurisdiction to consider the Application that was brought before it. To settle this riddle, the Application instituting proceedings needs to be analysed, in the first place. 56. In their Application, Plaintiffs invoke the violation by the Defendant State, their right to enjoy the presumption of innocence (1), an infringement upon their honour and reputation (2), their right of not being deprived of personal liberty in an arbitrary manner (3), and their right to fair hearing (4). 57. To this effect, the Court recalls that: - The right to the presumption of innocence is guaranteed by the provisions of Articles 11(1)}} (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.[/popup × of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 7(1) (c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and [popup=14(2)] Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. - The right to honour is guaranteed by Articles 12 × No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and 17 7