judgment within twelve (12) months. It is therefore evident that Mr Paulo sought remedies to alleviate personal alleged violations, while in the instant case, the Applicants seek remedies that include constitutional and legislative amendments to cater for the public’s interest. 75. Furthermore, the Court’s finding in the Paulo case “… that the Applicant’s detention pending trial was not without reasonable grounds and that the refusal to grant him bail does not constitute a violation of his right to liberty”, expressly limited the decision of the Court to the claim of the Applicant on the application of Section 148(5)(a)(i) of the CPA vis-a-vis the right to liberty. It thus did not touch on Sub-sections 148(5)(b)-(e) of the CPA, which were not raised by Mr. Paulo as it did not concern him. 76. As regards a first decision on the merits, the Court emphasizes that a finding on the subject matter of a case requires an analysis of arguments and evidence adduced and a ‘demonstration’ of why the said arguments and evidence is sufficient or not. In the Paulo case, the Court was presented with an argument concerning the denial of bail for a person charged with armed robbery. However, it did not receive any arguments regarding any other accused persons, nor did it consider arguments regarding the ousting of the judicial discretion of the Court and the right to be heard due to the operation of Section 148(5) of the CPA. Therefore, it only made a decision as regards Section 148(5)(a) of the CPA but it could not have made a binding decision the other arguments mentioned above. 77. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that, the Applicants’ claim under Section 148(5)(a) of the CPA has been settled in accordance with the principles of the Charter. However, the claims under Sub-Sections 148(5)(b)-(e) of the CPA have not been settled and thus the present Application complies with Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules in respect of the said provisions of the CPA. 19