.000903 99. ln light of the circumstances of this case and based on the determination made earlier with respect to the violation of the Applicant's right to dignity, the Court is of the view that the anal search that he was subjected to constitutes a violation of his right to the integrity of his person. The Court therefore finds the Respondent State in violation of Article 4 of the Charter. c. Alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time 100. The Applicant alleges that for him to have waited almost seven (7) years before the High Court delivered its judgment in Civil Case No. 118 of 2007, violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time. lt is the Applicant's contention that, "this undue prolongation of the trial further increased the prejudice he was originally seeking redress for", which is a "lowered reputation with devastating effects on his personal and professional life". 101. The Respondent State challenges the Applicant's claim and avers that the delay in completing the case was caused by him. lt submits that after filing the case in september 2007, in August 2010, the Appticant amended the ptaint to join the Ministry of Home Affairs and Attorney General, and this resulted in the case commencing again in September 2010. The Respondent State further submits that after completion of the filing of the pleadings thereafter, the matter went through mediation as required by the Civil Procedure Code before the hearing began. 102. The Respondent State also avers that the Applicant severally requested for the recusal of the judges handling the matter, which led to the case being referred to the judge in charge for re-assignment and consequently resulted in further delays. By the Respondent state's calculation, the completion of the case actually lasted only three (3) years and three (3) months and the Applicant's actions account for the delay amounting to the remaining part of the period of seven (7) years. 25