00103? approach would have made it possible not only to deal with all the arguments and counter arguments of the parties, but would also have made it possible to consider tf,e Executive as a whole, and not only through one of its representatives without any kind of justification. ll. The Court failed to make a clear finding on one issue 16. ln paragraph '197 of the judgement, after noting and rightly so, that the appeal against a judgement "should not be considered as a violation of the presumption of innocence", the Court however went on to consider that "the absence of a notice of appeal of the Prosecutor General before the seizure of CRIET maintained the latter in a position of suspicion of guilt". 17. The Court however does not draw any consequence, in terms of violation of the right to presumption of innocence in paragraph 198 where it states its position. The result is that finally we do not really know whether the Respondent State violated the right of the Applicant in that regard. On this issue, the Court should have made a finding in one way or the other, instead of leaving the latter in suspense and shrouded in ambiguity. lll. The Court failed to reflect in the operative part certain findings made in the body of the judgment. 18. This is the case, first of all with regard to their allegation of the right of the Applicant for the investigation to be complete and for his right to adduce evidence. 19. ln paragraph 151 cited above in the judgement, the Court finds that there is no violation in the following terms: "Regarding the argument that immediate appearance would have violated the rights of the Applicant to defence, the Court notes [that] immediate appearance in itself ls not a violation of the right to defence" fltalics added]. 20. This finding is however not indicated anywhere in the optative part of the judgement. 21. lt is same with regard to the allegation of violation of the right to defence on the grounds that the Applicant was acquitted by the Cou( of First lnstance, First Class of Cotonou on the benefit of the doubt ln paragraph 198 of the judgement, the Court makes the following findings: Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that in the instant case, fhe acquittaljudgement on the benefit of the doubt is not a violation of the right to presumption of innocence" fltalics added. See also paragraph 196] 22. Once again, this finding is not reflected in the operative part of the judgement. 4