80. That following the preliminary investigation, the Applicant was charged by the dean of investigating judges, who released him on parole. 81. That the proceedings are legally ongoing and it is against all expectations that the Applicant seeks from this Court to stay the criminal proceedings; 82. That as the Court underlined in one of its jurisprudences “granting this application is equivalent to interfering with the criminal proceedings initiated and pending before the Togolese Courts”. 83. And even if the Applicant refers to the international provisions for the protection of human rights, it is clear that the application regarding the staying of the criminal proceedings legally initiated against the Applicant does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court, because to do so would “interfere with the internal proceedings of the Togolese State.” 84. The Respondent concludes that this court clearly lacks jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s main claim concerning the staying of the ongoing criminal proceedings. b. Pleas in Law 85. The Respondent, in support of its case, cited Article 79 (1) of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly of the Togolese Republic, Articles 22, 112 to 124 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 495 (3), 497, 663 and 664 of the Criminal Code all in force in Togo; Articles 6, 7 and 9 (2) of the African Charter, Articles 10 and 19 of the UDHR, Articles 9 and 14 (1st and 2nd sentence) (3,b) of the ICCPR and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 86. Further in support of its pleas, the Respondent relied on national and international jurisprudences. 18