91. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicants’ right to enforcement of a court decision guaranteed under Article 7(1) of the Charter. C. Alleged violation of the right to dignity and the prohibition of all forms of degradation 92. The Applicants contend that the Respondent State’s imposition of numerous impediments to the payment of their legally recognized and judicially adjudicated rights undermines their dignity. They further contend that the Respondent State’s conduct is a form of degradation and moral torture against them, as they find the situation very traumatizing and depressing. For the Applicants, the non-enforcement of the decision of 9 April 2009 for more than 13 (thirteen) years is a form of moral torture and an assault on their dignity. They claim that some of their family members died during the very long wait. * 93. The Respondent State denies any violation of the Applicants’ right under Article 5 of the Charter. It argues that the Applicants cannot hold the Respondent State responsible for the alleged violations of their dignity instead of AGEF, which only resorted to legal procedures to challenge a judicial decision. *** 94. Article 5 of the Charter provides as follows: “Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited.” 23