That without reference to the Applicants, the Court ordered that trial be continued and Applicants defend themselves without giving them the opportunity to engage another Counsel of their choice. The Respondent’s Reply In its rejoinder, the Respondent denies subjecting the Applicants to any form of torture or ill treatment and denied that Ebrima Solo Sandeng died as a result of injuries sustained from torture. The Respondent stated that on the issue of the Applicants’ Counsel’s withdrawal that the High Court of Gambia can sit at any designated place in the Gambia. That the security personnel in the Court premises were only deployed to maintain order in the face of the unruly conduct of the Applicants’ supporters and to ensure a hitch free proceeding. They added that the Counsel had unfettered access to the Applicants throughout the course of trial both at the prison and in the Court room. The Respondent avers that the arrest and prosecution of the Applicants had no political consideration and profiling but was necessitated by their participation in an unlawful procession and further stated that the death of Ebrima is not a justifiable grounds for the Applicants to have embarked on an unlawful procession. The Respondent maintained that the investigation resulted into the death of Ebrima Solo and denied the allegation of undue delay in bringing the Applicants to Court after being arrested. They submitted that the Applicants were arraigned within seventy-two (72) hours of arrest and that the Applicants have not established a prima facie violation of Article 11 of the African Charter. In conclusion, the Respondent submits that in seeking an order to nullify the purported charge, trial and imprisonment of the Applicants on the basis of the Public Order Act and subsequently direct an immediate release of the Applicants from prison, will amount to seeking to impose the powers of the Court to review the decision of the High Court of Gambia for which this Court lacks the competence to do. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 10