heard by competent national courts); and Article 9 (the right to express and disseminate one's opinion) ; (ii) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 2 (3) (the right to effective remedy in case of violation of rights); Article 6 (1) (the inherent right to life); Article 14 (the right to have one's cause heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal) ; and Article 19 (2) (right to freedom of expression); (iii) The Revised ECOWAS Treaty: Article 66.2 (c) (obligation to ensure respect for the rights of journalists); (iv) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 8 (the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals in case of violation of rights). the Court's 9. The Respondent State having raised various objections regarding jurisdiction and admissibility of the Application, the Court first decided on the said 2 objections in its Ruling of 21 June 2013 . 10. As earlier indicated , the Court, in the above mentioned Judgment of 28 March 2014, found that the Respondent State violated certain provisions of the Charter (supra, para 1). Ill. SUMMARY OF THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 11 . After requesting and obtaining from the Court an extension of the time limit, the Applicants transmitted to the Registry of the Court their Brief on Reparations by e-mail dated 7 June 2014, received at the Registry on 9 June 2014. Attached to the Brief were two presidential decrees dated 9 June 1999 and 11 June 1999, respectively, offering social welfare cover and special allowances, notably for the beneficiaries and direct 2 See the Ruling of 21 June 2013. para 125 5