therein. That is, this immunity does not to exempt the Parliament Member from being detained, arrested, heard or tried, but it only prohibits it without the authorization of the Assembly, which will then be able to check whether there is any indication that justify maintaining such immunities.” (See pag 12). 164. The Court further noted in the same judgment that: “The deliberation of the assembly on immunity, as a rule, takes the form of resolution (as proceeds in the Respondent State) – This resolution is a legal-constitutional act with a political nature, as it represents the exercise of a faculty directly conferred by the Constitution that defines its requirements and its object. Thus, this is an act of relationship between two branches of sovereignty (National Assembly and the Court) that represents in practice a conditioning of the Judiciary by the Parliament, with scope beyond the mere procedural effects, as it configures as an instrument for the affirmation and independence of the legislative power, and is therefore on the same level as legislative acts coming from a sovereign body or a supreme State body, with an individual and concrete nature, similar in their content to administrative acts. Parliamentary immunity enjoyed by the applicant is not a personal privilege of the Member of Parliament, but prerogatives or guarantees granted to Parliament Members with a view of ensuring them the protection and independence necessary for the performance of his duties. Therefore, they are ultimately aimed at preserving the dignity, integrity and independence of Parliaments as a whole, vis-à-vis other State bodies or any other authorities. (See pag. 13) 165. That being said, the Court found that, contrary to the Applicant's contention, the process of waiving his parliamentary immunity followed the steps required by law. It was initiated by requisition of the Public Prosecutor at the Lomé Court of First Instance, which on March 9, 2020 addressed to 40