examines whether the national courts applied appropriate principles and international standards in rectifying the errors. This approach has been adopted by similar international courts”. 81. It emerges from the present Application that the Applicants did not attach the proof of service of the Decision No. 420 of 04/08/2016 issued by the Administrative Section of the Supreme Court to the Ministry, from which begins the calculation of the thirty-day period stipulated in Article 256 above of Organic Law No. 2016/046 of 23 September 2016 determining the organisation and rules of work of the Supreme Court and the procedures followed before it. The time-limit for appeal therefore remains open and as such, the national courts cannot be faulted with regard to the manner in which they applied the law. As the decisions handed down in the proceedings referenced do not reveal any denial of justice, this Court considers that it has no reason to intervene or call them into question. 82. The Court therefore dismisses the Applicants’ allegation that the Respondent State’s domestic courts violated Article 122 of the Code of Civil, Commercial and Social Procedure. 83. Consequently, the Court holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants’ right to have their cause heard, guaranteed by Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter. VIII. REPARATIONS 84. The Court notes that under Article 27(1) of the Protocol, “[i]f the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation”. 85. The Court notes that having found that the Respondent State did not violate any of the Applicant’s rights, it has no basis to grant reparations. 19