40. The evidence on file shows that when the offence was committed, the police alerted by the neighbours arrested Mr Boussourou, kept him in custody and prepared an investigation report; that this report was later transmitted to the State Counsel at the Court of First lnstance of Bamako District V; that the latter, for his part, then seized the Criminal Court for immediate court hearing after placing the culprit under detention. 41.The Court notes that the facts described above do not contain any element of fact or of law which could render the case and, still less, the procedure, so complicated as to justiff a relatively lengthy hearing. 42.The Court further notes that the Court of First lnstance of Bamako District V which was seized on 20 February, 2014, rendered its judgment on 27 February, 2014, that is, eight (08) days later. As for the Appeal Court which examined the case on 27 February, 2014, the latter gave its decision on 24 March, 20,14, that is, within twenty-five (25) days. The Court finds that such a time frame is not lengthy enough for it to declare the procedure unduly prolonged. 43. The two (2) years and two (2) months delay that the Applicants are complaining about is the duration of the proceedings before the Court of First tnstance of Bamako District sitting as a referral court which is expected to dispose of its case by making a ruling on the Applicants' claim for civil damages. 44.On this polnt, as it could be seen from the evidence on file, the defence brief in particular, that the Applicants themselves contributed in delaying the procedure because at the hearing of 20 February, 2014, their Counsel prayed the Court to reserve the rights of the civil parties; and besides, the Applicants had not produced the final medical report concerning Mariam Kouma. The Applicants did not contest this fact. 45. The Court holds that the expeditiousness of a procedure requires the necessary cooperation of the Parties in the trial to avoid undue delay as happened in the L0 €+ 4