Indeed, Article 7 provides as follows: “When the facts ... concerning a person
entitled to immunity or privilege from
prosecution
shall transmit the case file to the competent
..., the Special
Authority,
Prosecutor
for the
purposes
of
prosecution.”
47. The Court notes, on this point, that the Applicants were summoned
and
heard by organs of the criminal investigation police, even if frequently; that the
Defendant State admits and affirms that it was a matter of preliminary inquiry,
and that none of the Applicants were remanded or held in custody.
48. The Court equally emphasises that Article 101(2) of the Constitution
. Senegal,
which
Applicants,
Wealth,
confers
the
privilege
talks of “criminal liability”, and
for which
the
Applicants
(judicial hearing). Understood
privileges
of immunity
and
immunities
are
from
Article
being
prosecution
7 of Law
heard,
talks
81-53
the
Applicants
do
not
on
the
Illicit
of “proceedings”
as such, all the texts conferring those
on
on
of
intend
the
rights of
use
of
a
~ preliminary inquiry as a starting point for judicial proceedings.
49. The Court recalls that a preliminary inquiry in any procedure
not result in a phase
ofgiudicial
proceedings;
Defendant State, the said judicial proceedings
and
since
may or may
in the words gigthe
shall be preceded
by a house
arrest, t will be too early to talk of violation of the Applicants’ privileges.
50. The
Court
immunities,
is of the
as
at
the
view
that
current
the
stage
Applicants’
of
the
rights
preliminary
to
privileges
inquiry,
are
and
not
compromised; that those rights are due where judicial proceedings are set in
motion; that since a preliminary inquiry may not necessarily end up in judicial
proceedings,
in that the
facts being
investigated
may
not
amount
to
the
offence being sought after in the investigative process, the Court concludes on
this issue by stating that the Applicants’
rights to privileges and
immunities
from prosecution are not violated.
16