64. Regarding the effect of the prolonging on the quality of remedies, the Commission is of the view that this particular prolonging extended the entire procedure. In fact, a response within a reasonable timeframe would have allowed the Complainant to receive remedies from the higher court and thereby influence the total length of his detention. Regarding the prolonging of the total length of his detention, the Complainant’s complaints also concern the multiplicity of procedural acts. 65. Regarding the issue of the multiplicity of procedural acts, the Commission notes that under Section 145 of Cameroon’s Criminal Procedure Code (2005),10 the examining magistrate may perform any acts which he deems necessary for the discovery of the truth, including, among others, bringing new charges. Moreover, even if the Code does not expressly provide for separation, such an act is universally recognized in procedural practice as falling within the administrative jurisdiction of the judge.11 66. As such, the Commission is of the view that if the ground for separation is to avoid delaying the trial of an aspect of ongoing proceedings, the ultimate goal of such an act should be to accelerate the entire process and ensure expeditious justice. Where the accused has been deprived of his liberty, the objective of the separation must be to avoid prolonging the pre-trial detention for the charges concerned. In this case, the reasons for such a procedural act must relate exclusively to the need to perform the procedures necessary for the preparation of the case. 67. In this case, it appears that the successive separations and indictments focused on the same charges without, however, facilitating the preparation of the case on those charges. In other words, the separations ultimately turned out to be Law No 2005/007 of 27 July 2005. Braudo, Private Law Dictionary (Dictionnaire du droit privé), juridique.com/definition/jonction.php (consulted on 27 September 2013). 10 11S http://www.dictionnaire- 17