£1)04051 254. The Court considers that the statements of the Head of State on the media and '. during the "meetings" on the case of international drug trafficking, after the acquittal judgment were such that would compromise the Applicant's reputation and dignity in the eyes of his partners and in the public at large. 255. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Applicant's honour, reputation and dignity have been tarnished in violation of Article 5 of the Charter. iii. Allegation that the acquittal judgment soiled the Applicant's reputation and honour 256. The Court notes that, in law or in fact, a court decision cannot be regarded as a reason to tarnish the honour or reputation of an individual, and the Applicant cannot validly rely on the reason that the acquittal on the benefit of the doubt did not sufficiently remove the equivocation on the not-guilty verdict. 257. The Court finds in this regard that the acquittal judgment on the benefit of doubt does not tarnish the Applicant's honour, reputation and dignity, and does not constitute a violation of Article 5 of the Charter. E. Alleged violation of the right to property 258. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State used the "acquittal-guilt" decision of 4 November 2016 to destroy his companies, namely: SOCOTRAC, his radio station and television channel. He submits that the withdrawal of the customs agent licence from his company followed by the cutting of the signals of his radio and television stations were clearly used by the State services to prevent him from carrying on with his business activities. 259. He considers that the ban on broadcasting imposed on his radio and television stations is unfair and infers therefrom a flagrant violation of his right to property guaranteed by Article 14 of the Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. I ~~ , ~ ~ ~ ha ~ J